Pashley

The appellant instituted this action for the recovery of the purchase price of an automobile which he had sold to the respondent, basing the suit upon a written contract. This respondent contended was obtained by fraud, coercion and misrepresentation.

The contract specified one used Chevrolet touring car, for which the purchaser was to pay a stated amount in monthly installments. It recited that the personal property had been examined, and was “in good order and repair, and said purchaser further agrees that he will, at his own expense, during the life of this contract, repáir any injuries sustained by said personal property ... ; all bills for repairs done upon, and labor and materials furnished by the seller . . . before the final payment . . . shall be added to the purchase price,” and that the ear was “sold as is.” It was respondent’s contention that he was unable to read or write, that the contract was not read to him, and that the machine was guaranteed for a period of thirty days. It appears that he was accompanied to appellant’s place of business by one Bradovich, who witnessed his signature, made by “his [X] mark”; that the machine was of no practical value, and when…