Fontron v. Kruse

Citations

• 103 Kan. 32
• 172 P. 1007
• 1918 Kan. LEXIS 177

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Promissory Note — Commission on Farm Loan — No Failure of Consideration Proven. In an action on a promissory note the answer alleged that the consideration for the note wholly failed; that it was given in part payment of a commission on a farm loan under a verbal contract by which plaintiff agreed to .procure for defendant a $20,000 loan at six percent interest; that the loan obtained bore six and one-half percent interest; that defendant was unable to read, and signed the loan papers believing they provided for six percent interest, and did not discover the truth until he had made two payments of interest, and he prayed that the note be canceled and that he have judgment against the plaintiff for the balance of the commission paid in cash at the time the note was executed. No fraud or mutual mistake was alleged. Held, that the facts do not show a total failure of consideration.</p> <p>2. Same — Parol Evidence of Consideration Incompetent under Pleadings. Under such an answer, when the defendant’s evidence shows that he signed written applications for the loan appointing the plaintiff his attorney in fact to procure the loan at six and óne-half percent interest, it is error to permit defendant to offer oral evidence of representations and statements made previous to the execution of the written applications and loan papers, the presumption of law being . that the instruments contained the whole contract and should govern, in the absence of any allegation or claim of fraud or mutual mistake. (Willard v. Ostrander, 46 Kan. 591, 26 Pac. 1017.)</p>