Sharpless-Hendler Ice Cream Co. v. Davis
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
The question before the court on this rehearing is as to whether the contract was binding on the de*322fendant because of the fact that she could not read and the contract was neither read nor explained to her. The defendant could write, at least to the extent of signing her name, as is evident from the contract itself. There is no testimony that the complainant’s agent, who procured the contract, was aware of the fact that the defendant could not read. The only evidence on this point is from the agent himself, who testified that at the time he thought the defendant could read,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. BelliwithCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1897
- Sponseller v. KimballMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
- First National Bank v. Ten NapelSupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- McKinney v. Boston & Maine RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1914
- Shulman v. MoserIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bodley v. JonesSupreme Court of Delaware · 1947
- Peyton v. William C. Peyton Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1937
- Jones v. BodleyCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1944
- Smulski v. H. Feinberg Furniture Co.Superior Court of Delaware · 1937
- Southern Auto Company v. FletcherCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1941