International Harvester Co. v. Franklin County Hardware Co.

Citations

• 101 Kan. 488
• 167 P. 1057
• 1917 Kan. LEXIS 125

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Note — Signed by Directors of Corporation — Fraud — Presumptive Knowledge of Directors. Where one assuming to have knowledge of the facts induces the director of a corporation to sign a note by false statements regarding its business, a defense to the note on the ground of such fraud is not rendered unavailable to the signer by constructive knowledge of the company’s transactions imputable to him as one' of - its officers.</p> <p>2. Same — Fraudulent Representations — Evidence. Although one of the persons alleged to have been defrauded did not testify to the making of the false statement relied upon, that omission was supplied by other testimony, and there was room for an inference that he was influenced thereby.</p> <p>S. Same. Where a creditor, for the purpose of inducing a director to sign the note of a corporation, falsely represented to him that the note was secured by assets in the hands o'f the corporation sufficient to meet it, the fact that the director relied upon the statement without further inquiry is not fatal to a defense based on the fraud.</p> <p>4. Same — Instruction Asked — Refused—Not Error. Where' the jury were instructed that a recovery on the ground of fraud could be had only if certain statements had been made, it was not error to refuse an instruction that such a recovery could not be based on a finding that the statement was not made, but that words were spoken which the person addressed believed, with good reason, were intended to be so understood.</p>