American Fine Art Co. v. Reeves Pulley Co.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
... - In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for.the District of Indiana. . , Plaintiff in error brought its action for damages for the breach of the following alleged contract: “Columbus, Ind.
Read the full summary
... - In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for.the District of Indiana. . , Plaintiff in error brought its action for damages for the breach of the following alleged contract: “Columbus, Ind. April 96. “ReeveS Pulley'Co., Columbus, Ind. — Gentlemen: We shall make application for the registration of your new trade-mark as accepted by you, showing the -Reeves Pulley in the clouds, with wings spreading from either side, in connee,tion:with the characteristic and specific style of the name ‘Reeves’ as shown on trade-mark drawing, with the understanding that we will charge you only…
1Opinion of the CourtBaker, Circuit Judge
Undoubtedly the general rule is that in signing a contract one party may not blindly rely on the representations of the other. The point to emphasize, however, is that the rule was not adopted to advantage the trickster, but to reprove the victim’s negligent failure to use the means at command to protect himself. No contract that has been procured by fraud should be enforced; and, if relief is denied, it is not on the bare fact that the signer has failed to use his opportunities to read and study and understand the contract for himself, but because his failure to discover the fraud that was…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Bixler v. WrightSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1917
- Stern v. Moneyweight Scale Co.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1914
- J. Weil & Co. v. Quidnick Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1911