
    HOWELL v. BLOOM.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 29, 1909.)
    Contracts (§ 93)—Signature—Meeting of Minds.
    A business man of experience may not escape his undertaking by saying that he signed the contract without reading it, when the only person who can contradict his present statement that something else should be read into the instrument is insane.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Contracts, Cent. Dig. § 416; Dec. Dig. § 93.]
    Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
    Action by Anita Howell against Sol Bloom. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial ordered.
    Argued before GILDERSLEEVE, P. J., and MacLEAN and SEABURY, JJ.
    Hirsch, Sheuerman & Limberg, for appellant.
    Einstein, Townsend & Guiterman, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

We think that a man, years in business, with consequent education to prudence, should not be permitted to escape his own undertaking under his own signature upon his saying he did not read the writing, and when the only man who can contradict his present saying that something else should be read into the writing he signed is in the insane asylum.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.  