Civil No. 1337 | Ariz. | May 16, 1914
The defendant admits the execution and the delivery of the written instrument sued upon, and
Do the matters set forth in defendant’s answer constitute a defense? Are they sufficient to avoid the written undertaking? Can a party to a written contract defend upon the grounds that he was induced to execute the contract by reason of verbal conditions agreed upon, but not expressed in the instrument when executed and delivered by him?
The general rule is that: “If the execution of a contract to give a subscription is induced by a fraudulent representation of fact, it is not binding upon the subscriber; the fraud affords a defense. It is essential, however, that the fraud should relate to the subject matter of the contract.” 37 Cyc. 493.
Defendant’s undertaking was that he would pay the specified sum of money upon the performance by the other party of a single condition named in the contract, viz., provided that at least $60,000 be subscribed by others for the purpose mentioned. By the terms of the written instrument, the performance of that condition is made the sole consideration for his
“A false or fraudulent representation, to afford grounds of relief against a contract which the parties have entered into, must relate to the subject matter of that contract.” Blair v. Buttolph, 72 Iowa, 31" court="Iowa" date_filed="1887-06-16" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/blair-v-buttolph-7102775?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7102775">72 Iowa, 31, 33 N. W. 349, citing Noel v. Horton, 50 Iowa, 687" court="Iowa" date_filed="1879-04-25" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/noel-v-horton-7098319?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7098319">50 Iowa, 687.
It appears from the answer that defendant made some other agreements with the persons soliciting his subscription, by which agreements he undertook to promise to pay a like sum in consideration of the performance of certain conditions, and those conditions have not been performed. Under such circumstances the consideration for such contract and promise has failed, through the failure to perform the conditions agreed upon. That is not this case; defendant admits or does not deny that the condition expressed in the written contract as the consideration of his undertaking has been performed as agreed. Such is the contract here involved, and all other contracts, so far as this action is concerned, are wholly immaterial.
Another reason exists why the matters pleaded cannot be of avail to defendant as a defense to the action: By the terms of the written instrument the performance of the condition to procure the subscription of at least $60,000 from others, for the purpose of providing a building and site for the use and benefit of the Young Men’s Christian Association of Phoenix, was made the sole condition and consideration of defendant’s promise to pay the money. In his answer in question he alleges that he was induced in part to enter into the agreement by another promise or other representations entirely different and distinct from the condition appearing in the contract made and delivered, and that that promise or condition has been broken.
“It is the general rule that parol evidence is not admissible to show that a subscription was not to be payable except on other conditions than those embodied in the written contract.” 37 Cyc. 504, citing Blair v. Buttolph, supra; Farmington First Free-Will Baptist Parish v. Perham, 84 Me. 563" court="Me." date_filed="1892-07-21" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/first-free-will-baptist-parish-v-perham-4935355?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4935355">84 Me. 563, 24 A. 958" court="Me." date_filed="1892-05-31" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/goddard-v-inhabitants-of-harpswell-4935342?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="4935342">24 Atl. 958; Gerner v. Church, 43 Neb. 690" court="Neb." date_filed="1895-02-05" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/gerner-v-church-6649703?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6649703">43 Neb. 690, 62 N. W. 51; Blodgett v.
It' follows as a consequence that the court should properly have instructed the jury to return a verdict for plaintiff, as the defendant would have no right to recover under the pleadings and evidence produced. The rulings of the court, if erroneous as abstract propositions of law, could not prejudice the appellant, no issue of fact existed for trial, and the questions raised on the trial were at most questions the discussion of which could in no manner affect the rights of the parties.
We find no reversible error in the record, and the judgment must be affirmed.
FRANKLIN, C. J., and ROSS, J., concur.
NOTE.—As to the -validity and enforceability of subscriptions for charity, see note in 48 L. R. A. (N. S.) 783. .
On the validity of a subscription induced by false statements that certain other persons were to invest in the enterprise, see note in 29 L. R. A. (N. 6.) 477.