release and accepted the pitiful sum of $50 in settlement of the injuries received by him he was in the hospital of the railway company, at St. Louis, hundreds of miles away from his family and friends and advisers, surrounded by tire paid employés of the railway company, almost a monomaniac upon the subject of once more obtaining employment with the railway company; and the assurances from the claim agent that the sum accepted and the release signed by him only related to the slight injury mours & Co., 116 Hawai’i 277, 172 P.3d 1021, 1033-35 (2007) (same), Phipps v. Winneshiek County, 593 N.W.2d 143, 145-46 (Iowa 1999) (same), and Roth v. La Societe Anonyme Turbomeca France, 120 S.W.3d 764, 771-76 (Mo.Ct.App.2003) (same), with Taylor v. Hopper, 207 Cal. 102, 276 P. 990, 991-92 (1929) (<HOLDING>), and Shallenberger v. Motorists Mut. Ins. Co.,
holding that no consideration existed for part of the settlement holding that a party may rescind a contract and avoid liability thereunder if the partys consent to the contract was procured by the other partys either fraudulent or nonfraudulent material misrepresentations holding that a plaintiff must rescind a settlement and return the consideration received thereunder before bringing a suit for fraud holding that in the context of a settlement contract the defrauded party may either 1 rescind the settlement or 2 ratify the settlement retain the proceeds and institute an action to recover fraud damages holding acceptance of settlement estopped plaintiff from subsequent suit