Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Humphrey v. Merriam, 20 N.W. 138.

34 citing documents.

Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
Florenzano v. Olson 387 N.W.2d 168 Minn. 1986
Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197, 198 , 20 N.W.
Swedeen v. Swedeen 134 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1965
Swedeen v. Swedeen 134 N.W.2d 871 Minn. 1965
Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; Swanson v. Domning, supra; Thomas v. Murphy, 87 Minn. 358 , ; Hollerman v. F. H. Peavey & Co. 269 Minn. 221 , 130 N. W. (2d) 534 .
Saupe v. St. Paul Trust Co. 212 N.W. 892 Minn. 1927
Saupe v. St. Paul Trust Co. 212 N.W. 892 Minn. 1927
Co. 23 Minn. 314 ; Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; 26 C. J. p. 1130.
Olson v. Shephard 206 N.W. 711 Minn. 1926
Olson v. Shephard 206 N.W. 711 Minn. 1926
It has long been settled that, where a party tries his action on a particular theory, he cannot shift Ms ground in tMs court and assert a right to recover on a different theory- Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; Peteler *438 P. Ry.
Jeffries v. Stromme 204 N.W. 541 Minn. 1925
Jeffries v. Stromme 204 N.W. 541 Minn. 1925
Appellant maintains- that, under the rule of Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , , he is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Tischer v. Bardin 194 N.W. 3 Minn. 1923
Tischer v. Bardin 194 N.W. 3 Minn. 1923
Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; Bullitt v. Farrar, 42 Minn. 8 , , 6 L. R. A. 149, 18 Am.
Ristvedt v. Watters 178 N.W. 166 Minn. 1920
Ristvedt v. Watters 178 N.W. 166 Minn. 1920
Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; Petrie v. Clarke, 126 Minn. 119 , .
Drake v. Fairmont Drain Tile & Brick Co. 151 N.W. 914 Minn. 1915
Drake v. Fairmont Drain Tile & Brick Co. 151 N.W. 914 Minn. 1915
Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; Bullitt v. Farrar, 42 Minn. 8 , , 6 L.R.A.
Petrie v. Clarke 147 N.W. 1097 Minn. 1914
Petrie v. Clarke 147 N.W. 1097 Minn. 1914
In Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , , it was held, in effect, that one who did not profess to have personal knowledge, and gave the source of his information, was not guilty of action *121 able misrepresentation.
Meland v. Youngberg 145 N.W. 167 Minn. 1914
Meland v. Youngberg 145 N.W. 167 Minn. 1914
On such a state of facts, as the court below well remarked, if plaintiff made out anything, it was a cause of action on a warranty and not for deceit.” Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , .
Freeman v. F. P. Harbaugh Co. 130 N.W. 1110 Minn. 1911
Freeman v. F. P. Harbaugh Co. 130 N.W. 1110 Minn. 1911
The rule is stated in Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , .
Pott v. Hanson 124 N.W. 17 Minn. 1910
Pott v. Hanson 124 N.W. 17 Minn. 1910
496 ; Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; Busterud v. Farrington, 36 Minn. 320 , .
Holt v. Sims 102 N.W. 386 Minn. 1905
Holt v. Sims 102 N.W. 386 Minn. 1905
Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ; Bullitt v. Farrar, 42 Minn. 8 , ; McKibbin v. Ellingson, 58 Minn. 205 , .
Humphrey v. Merriam 49 N.W. 199 Minn. 1891
Humphrey v. Merriam 49 N.W. 199 Minn. 1891
This action was commenced after the decision in Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Haven v. Neal 45 N.W. 612 Minn. 1890
Haven v. Neal 45 N.W. 612 Minn. 1890
436; Salisbury v. Howe, 87 N. Y. 128 ; Cowley v. Smyth, 46 N. J. Law, 380; Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Bullitt v. Farrar 43 N.W. 566 Minn. 1889
Bullitt v. Farrar 43 N.W. 566 Minn. 1889
iff the representations alleged in the complaint, and that at the time of making such representations the defendant knew they were false, or, having no knowledge of their truth or falsity, he did not believe them to be true, or that, having no knowledge-of their truth or falsity, he yet represented them to be true of his own knowledge.” It will be seen, upon an examination of Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.
Busterud v. Farrington 31 N.W. 360 Minn. 1887
Busterud v. Farrington 31 N.W. 360 Minn. 1887
439 ; Humphrey v. Merriam, 32 Minn. 197 , ( 20 N. W. Rep.