The Lundy court stated that the insured must have either actual notice of the insurer's intent to rescind or that "`such intention has been so expressed as to give notice to the ordinary [person] in the exercise of ordinary care.'" Lundy, 100 S.E.2d at 546-47 (quoting Grant Lumber Co. v. N. River Ins. Co., D.C., 253 F. 83, 88 (D.Idaho 1918)). The Lundy court further held that a court may consider whether, as a matter of law, an insured failed to act as a person of reasonable prudence in cashing a premium refund check tendered by an insurer.

0, 36 P.2d 1088; Birmingham News Co. v. Browne, 228 Ala. 395, 153 So. 773; Johnson v. Ala. Fuel Iron Co., 166 Ala. 534, 52 So. 312; 11 R.C.L. 811; 39 C.J. 1293; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Gleason, 5 Cir., 21 F.2d 883; Wallace v. Casey Co., 132 App. Div. 35, 116 N.Y.S. 394; Byrne v. Dennis, 303 Pa. 72, 154 A. 123; Credit Alliance Corp. v. Sheridan Theatre Co., 241 N.Y. 216, 149 N.E. 837; Wen Kroy Realty Co. v. Public Nat. B. T. Co., 260 N.Y. 84, 183 N.E. 73; Fifth St. B. L. Ass'n v. Kornfeld, 315 Pa. 406, 172 A. 703; King Const. Co. v. Mary Helen Coal Corp., 194 Ky. 435, 239 S.W. 799; Robertson v. C. O. D. Garage Co., 45 Nev. 160, 199 P. 356; Silverado S. S. Co. v. Prendergast, 9 Cir., 31 F.2d 225; Arnold v. Somers, 92 Vt. 512, 105 A. 260. Complainant must be deemed to have known Ellis owned the property involved in her trade with him since, in absence of misrepresentations as to contents of document, one who executes the document will not be heard to deny knowledge of its contents. Grant Lumber Co. v. North River Ins. Co., D.C., 253 F. 83; Metzger v. Aetna Ins. Co., 227 N.Y. 411, 125 N.E. 814; In re McCready's Estate, 316 Pa. 246, 175 A. 554; Muller v. Mutual Ben. H. A. Ass'n, 228 Mo. App. 492, 68 S.W.2d 873; Midland Mortgage Co. v. Rice, 197 Iowa 711, 198 N.W. 24; 17 C.J.S., Contracts, § 137, p. 489; 12 Am.Jur. 630; Bates v. Harte, 124 Ala. 427, 26 So. 898, 82 Am.St.Rep. 186; Terry v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 116 Ala. 242, 22 So. 532. The acts of an agent, even in matters touching his agency, do not bind his principal where he is known to be acting for himself or to have an adverse interest.

The court below was correct in refusing to hold that the fine print in the invoice constituted a special contract between the parties. Neither of them had read this fine print or knew of the statements it contained. ( Matter of Tanenbaum Textile Co. v. Schlanger, 287 N.Y. 400; Sturtevant Co. v. Fireproof Film Co., 216 N.Y. 199; Grant Lumber Co. v. North River Ins. Co., 253 F. 83.) The judgment below should accordingly be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.