Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hernlund v. Town & Country Motors, Inc.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 17, 1924No. 23,737Published

1DissentDtbell, J.

I dissent.

Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was at fault. No estoppel operates against either. The attorney of the plaintiff had neither implied authority from his professional relationship nor actual authority by his contract to settle her cause of action. A settlement made without the authority of the plaintiff, and procured from the defendant by a forged release purporting to be executed by the plain*130tiff, without which the settlement would not have been made, is not a bar and may be disregarded. See Hamberger v. White, 54 Okl. 736, 154 Pac. 576; Miller v. Lane, 13 Ill. App. 648;…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Danziger v. Pittsfield Shoe Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Gibson v. NelsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1910
  3. Jones v. InnessSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
  4. Matteson v. BlaisdellSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1921
  5. Ambrose v. McDonaldCalifornia Supreme Court · 1878

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API