First State Bank v. Pederson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Action, in the district court for Cottonwood county to recover $100 upon a promissory note. The answer alleged that the note was procured by specified fraudulent representations of one Loffler who •claimed to be a physician. The case was tried before Nelson, J., who denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant.
Read the full summary
Action, in the district court for Cottonwood county to recover $100 upon a promissory note. The answer alleged that the note was procured by specified fraudulent representations of one Loffler who •claimed to be a physician. The case was tried before Nelson, J., who denied plaintiff’s motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, it appealed.
1Opinion of the Court
Dibell, C.
This is an action by the plaintiff upon a promissory note made by the defendant to the Sioux Falls Medical Institute, and assigned to the plaintiff for value before maturity. There was a verdict for the .defendant and the plaintiff appeals from the order denying its motion for a new trial.
1. One Loffler, representing the Sioux Falls Medical Institute, .sought out the defendant on his farm, told him that his wife was affected with tuberculosis and asked employment to treat her. He represented that he had studied in Germany; that he had a treatment for tuberculosis not known to other…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Browning v. HinkleSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- Whitney v. WagenerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1901
3Cited by4 opinions
- Longman v. AndersonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Anderson v. Great Northern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- In re American Range & Foundry Co.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1926
- McCoy v. City National BankSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1915