Price v. Marthen

Contracts — Parol Evidence. One who signed, without reading, a contract which provided unconditionally for the purchase of a nickel-in-the-slot musical instrument, knowing'that the contract was to he for. warded by the agent who took the order to the dealers, cannot show, in defense to an action for the price, a prior parol agreement between the agent and himself that he should take the instrument and operate it upon commission.

Error to Ogemaw; Sharpe, J. Assumpsit by Milbert E. Price and Willard E. Main, copartners as the Equitable Manufacturing Company, against William B. Marthen, for goods sold and delivered. Erom a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs bring error. ■ Plaintiffs were partners, doing business under the firm name of the Equitable Manufacturing Company. Their business was the manufacture and sale of musical instruments known as the “American Musical Automatons.” Their place of business was at Iowa City, Iowa. The sale was made through an agent. The contract was in writing, signed by both parties, and was executed in duplicate, —one sent by the agent to the company, and the other delivered to, and retained by, the defendant. The body of the contract was printed. The price was $135. The instrument was put in operation by dropping a nickel in the slot. The contract was forwarded to the plaintiffs. The instrument shipped was received and placed in defendant’s saloon, but, as he claimed, failed to work. He thereupon notified the plaintiffs by letter, and subsequently xeshipped the instrument to them. ’ He refused payment, and plaintiffs brought this suit in assumpsit to recover the purchase price. Attached to the plea of the general issue was a notice that the contract was obtained by fraud and false representations; that defendant was drunk and intoxicated, and in no condition to know what he was doing; that he did not know the contents of the contract, and did not read it; and that the machine was not as represented.