Book may have numerous typos, missing text, images, or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1890. Excerpt: ... For the errors pointed out the judgment must be set aside, with costs, and a new trial ordered. The other Justices concurred. Eugene F. Averill V. Mary R. Wood, Administra TK1X, ETC. Fraudulent representations--Promissory note--Qualified indorsement --Ignorance of import--Release of right of action--Consideration--Signature obtained by fraud--Pleading --Declaration--Evidence--Charge to jury. 1. An arrangement by the receiver of a corporation to pay its out standing note in lumber amounts to an acceptance of the note to the common understanding. 2. To hold that a man cannot be defrauded by false representa tions because he is presumed to know the law, which presumption is a violent one in most cases, is to place the ignorant and foolish, who are generally the victims of fraud, beyond the protection of the law. Hess v. Culver, 77 Mich. 598 (headnotes 1 and 3). So held, where a plaintiff claimed to have been defrauded in the purchase of the note of an insolvent corporation by representations that its receiver had arranged to pay the note in lumber, which arrangement it was claimed the receiver had no power to make, for which reason the plaintiff had no right to to rely thereon. 3. Where, in a suit for damages for alleged fraudulent representations by which plaintiff was induced to purchase a note, the jury find that the fraud was committed as claimed, evidence that the defendant said he would guarantee that the note would be paid is admissible as a part of the transaction, if the jury find that such promise was made to aid in the fraud perpetrated on the plaintiff. 4. The law approves of settlements and compromises of disputed claims, and, when deliberately made, the parties are bound by them, and the law will not sanction any interference with them, without the consent of the parties, ...