
    MAYFIELD et al. v. FIDELITY STATE BANK.
    No. 16896
    Opinion Filed Sept. 7, 1926.
    (Syllabus.)
    Contracts - Binding Effect of Signature - Presumption as to Ii~iow1edge of Contents.
    A person signing an instrument is presumed to know its contents, and one in possession of his faculties and able to read and understand und having an opportunity to read a contract which he signs, if be neglects and fails to do so, cannot escape ~ts liability.
    Error from District Court, Pawnee County; Edwin R. McNeill, Judge.
    Action by the ]J'iclelity State Bank of Cleveland, Okla., against William R. May-field and Lafayette If. Mayfield. Judgment for plaintiff, a'nd defendants appeal.
    Affirmed.
    F. E. Riddle, for plaintiffs in error.
    Thurman S. I-Iurst, for defendant in error.
   PRELP~, ~.

This ca~ise was originally filed by the Fidelity State Bank of Oleve-land in the district co'art of Pawnee caunty to recover ~n a promissory note and to foreclose a real estate mortgage executed •by the defendant William R. Mayfield, Who appears here as plaintiff i'n error. The answer of the defendant admitted that he signed the note sued on, but denies the execution of the mortgage alleged to have been given to secure the payment thereof. When the cause was called for trial, however, he testIfied that when the note was given, the cashier of the bank prepared the note an~i mortgage for his signature and that before he signed them the cashier read them over to him, and he signed the `note, but understood the mortgage to be merely an ass1gn~ merit of his oil royalties instead of a real estate mortgage. At the close of the trial the court sustained plaintiff's motion Zoi and directed a verdict for the plaintiff, from which defendant appeals, and in such appeal but one question is presented, to wit: Was there sufficient evidence to justify the court in submitting the case to the jury?

Note-See 13 C. .T. p. 370, §249; (3 11. O~ L p. 624: 2 R. C. L. Supp. p. 168; 4 li. C.. L. Siipp. p. 430; 5 R. C. L. Supp. p. 350.

We have carefully examined the record and reach the conclusion that the court coni-mitted no error in directing the verd~ct. Plaintiff Fn error testified that he could read and write, and that the cashier of the bank read the mortgage to him before he signed it. He does not claim that any false repre-seutatious w'ere made to him by the officers of the bank, but merely contents himself hy asserting that the hank had never requested him to execute a mortgage, and that he did not understand what the legal effect of his signing the instrument would he. and under the state of acts disclosed by his own testimony the la;~ in this state is en well settled that citation of authorities or comment upon the reasons supporting such authorities seems useless.

In Guthrie & Western Railroad Co. v. Rhodes, 19 Okla. 21, 91 Pac. 1119, the rule was laid down by this court that:

"In the absence of any evidence of incapacity to reá& or any trick or artifice resorted to to prevent his reading it, a party signing a written instrninent that is plain and unequivobal in its terms, is bound by its express terms~ and cpnditions therein contained, and that he cannot set up jiis own carelessness and his own indolence as a defense, and, because he felled to make use of the faculties possessed by him for determining its conditions, be heard to say that its terms or cqnditions should he other or different from what they are."

The application of this rule in its various phases has been be-ore lh~s court many tinws and has heen enl5i~ged, explained, anti discussed in numerous opinions, hilt in nil of which this fundamental, sound, and salutary rule has been adhered `to. McNinch v. Northwest Thresher Co., 23 Okla. 386, 100 Pac. 524; Herron v. Rumley, 29 Okla. 317, 116 Pac. 952; Colonial Jewelry Co. v. Bridges, 43 Okla. 813, 144 Pac. 577: Ames v. Milan, 53 Okla. 730, 157 Pac. 941; Young v. Cole, 01 Okla. 113, 216 Pac. 429.

In Ozark States Trust Co. v. Winkler, 84 Okla. 7. 202 Pac. 12, in discussing th~s rule the court quotes from Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S. 45, 23 L. Ed. 203, stating:

"It will not do for a man to enter into a contract, and, when ~a11ed upon to re~ spond to its obligations, to say that he did n~'t read it when he si~aecI it. or did not know what it contained. If this were permitted. contracts would not be worth the~ paper on which they are written. But such is not the law."

Ely Walker Dry Goods Co. v. Smith, 60 0km. 261, 160 I'ac. SOS, was a case sonic-what similar to the one at bnr, and in the third para.~raph of the syllab:is thms court said:

"A pe:'son signing an instrument is pre--sumed to know its contents, and one in possession of his faculties and able to read and' understand, and having an opportunity to' read a contract which he signs, if he neglects and fails to do so, cannot escape its-liability, for the reason that at the time-lalse representations were made as to its-contents."

In the instant case there was no claim on the part of plaintiff in error that any misrepresentat'ons were made to him, but he' says that he had never been asked by time 1)011k to sign a mortgage, but that lie nnde:'-stdod lie was requested to and did siga an' assigament of his oil royalties. and under the state of the record here the trial court could properly pursue no different course than was pnrsned.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.

NICI-IOLSON. C.~., BRANSON, V C. .1., and MASON, LESTER. HUNT, CLARK. and RILEY, JJ., concur.  