53 Ind. 276 | Ind. | 1876
The appellees sued the appellant upon a promissory note. The appellant answered in four paragraphs. A demurrer was sustained to the first paragraph, and this ruling is assigned for error.
Issue, trial by jury, verdict for appellees, motion for a new trial overruled, and judgment.
The overruling of the motion for a new trial is assigned for error.
The only question discussed by counsel for appellant under this assignment of error relates to an instruction given and one refused. The instruction given and the one refused present the same question as the one which arises upon the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the first paragraph of the answer.
The decision of that question will, therefore, dispose of
Ve think the answer is fatally defective. It shows that the appellant was guilty of such gross negligence as deprives him of the right to complain of false and fraudulent representations on the part of one of the appellees, in procuring the execution of the note. There is no pretence that the appellant was unable to read, or that the note was misread to him, or that any trick was resorted to by which he was prevented from reading it for himself. He was asked to sign a note when he was about starting away on the train, and, being hurried, he relied upon the representation of one of the appellees that it was all right and according to contract, and signed the note. According to the averments of the answer, he was under no obligation to execute the note at that time, because the machinery had not been received. He was under neither moral, legal nor physical coercion, and if deceived, he has no one to blame but him
The judgment is affirmed, with five per cent damages and costs.