Having executed the contract, and no fraud appearing in the procurement of the execution, the Court is without power to relieve the defendant on the ground that the thought it contained provisions which it does not. He is concluded thereby to the same extent as if he had known what due diligence would have informed him of, to wit: its plain provisions that the agent had no authority to make agreements other than those contained therein, and that such agreements, if made, were not a part of the contract. Leonard v. Power Co., 155 N.C. 10; Machine Co. v. Feezer, supra; Wright v. R. R., 125 N.C. 1; Thomas v. Cooksey, 130 N.C. 148; Griffin v. Lumber Co., 140 N.C. 514; Dellinger v. Gillespie, supra: Hayes v. R. R., 143 N.C. 125; Floars v. Ins. Co., 144 N.C. 241; Dixon v. Trust Co., supra; Medlin v. Buford, 115 N.C. 260. The defendant, however, contends that plaintiff is not entitled to recover for that the delay in shipping the purchased articles was unreasonable, and that he is relieved thereby.

An opportunity should be given it to do so. This case differs from Wright v. R. R., 125 N.C. 1, in that there the issue of fraud was submitted to the jury. The release recited the consideration and the evidence proved it, and there being no evidence of fraud, this Court held that there being not a scintilla of evidence of the affirmative, the Judge should have directed a verdict on that issue against the party alleging the fraud.