Holland v. Bishop
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for St. Louis county, Ensign, J., denying motion for new trial. Action for recovery of money obtained by means of false and fraudulent representations.
1Opinion of the CourtCanty, J.
It appears by the undisputed evidence that the defendants agreed with plaintiff that they and he should form a partnership for the purpose of investing in certain standing and growing cedar and spruce timber; that each should be owner of an undivided' one-third of the same; that plaintiff was to contribute $500 as his share of the money to be invested; and that, pursuant to the agreement, he paid that sum to defendants for that purpose on November 14, 1892. He claims that they represented to him that the St. Louis River Water-Power Company was the owner of this timber, and that they were…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- F. M. Slagle & Co. v. GoodnowSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
3Cited by5 opinions
- Myzel v. FieldsCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1967
- NEUROSURGERY AND SPINE SURGERY v. GoldmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003
- Roehrich v. Holt Motor Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Benjamin (Benn) Myzel v. Harry Fields, Benjamin (Benn) Myzel v. Samuel H. King, Benjamin (Benn) Myzel v. Rita Vertelney, Special Administratrix, Etc., Benjamin (Benn) Myzel v. Gordon M. CohenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1968
- Neurosurgery & Spine Surgery, S.C. v. GoldmanAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003