Humphrey v. Merriam
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Brill, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, the action having been dismissed by the court upon the trial when the plaintiff rested.
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This was an action for damages for deceit in the sale of stock of the Florence Mining Company. The deceit consisted, as alleged by plaintiff, in the false and fraudulent statements of one Carver, defendant’s agent, who made the sale, as to the value, condition, and productiveness of the company’s mine,.and as to the amount of its indebtedness. Assuming that the alleged representations were made, and that they were untrue, (of which facts there was competent evidence,) and that they were material, (which some of them un*198cloubtedly were,) it was incumbent on plaintiff in such an action also to…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Marsh v. FalkerNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Steadman v. GuthrieCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1862
- Meyer v. . AmidonNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
3Cited by31 opinions
- Florenzano v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1986
- Slaymaker v. Westgate State BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1987
- Bullitt v. FarrarSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Busterud v. FarringtonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
- Sanford v. Gates, Townsend & Co.Montana Supreme Court · 1898
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.