Cited by

Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287 , ; Crooks v. Nippolt, 44 Minn. 239 , ; O’Neil v. Davidson, 147 Minn. 240 , ; Moe v. Shaffer, 150 Minn. 114 , , 18 A. L. R. 1194; Farmers State Bank v. Miller, 168 Minn. 199 , .

Defiel v. Rosenberg, 144 Minn. 166 , ; O’Neil v. Davidson, 147 Minn. 240 , ; The Encyclopedia Press, Inc. v. Harris, 140 Minn. 145 , ; Bartleson v. Vanderhoff, 96 Minn. 184 , ; Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287 , .

Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287 , ; The Encyclopedia Press, Inc. v. Harris, 140 Minn. 145 , ; McDonough v. Williams, 77 Ark.

It is well settled in this state, since the decision in Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287, that if the deceit is discovered while a lease or any other contract is wholly executory an action for damages will not lie.

Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287 , ; 2 Notes on Minn. Reports 981.

Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287 , ; Bartleson v. Vanderhoff, 96 Minn. 184 , ; McDonough v. Williams, 77 Ark.

Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287 , ; Bartleson v. Vanderhoff, 96 Minn. 184 , ; Advance Realty Co. v. Nichols, 126 Minn. 267 , ; McDonough v. Williams, 77 Ark.

Plaintiff further contends that defendant accepted the goods with knowledge that they did not, or likely would not, invoice up to the represented value, and that he thereby inflicted upon himself the damage complained of and should not be heard to complain, citing in support of the point Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287 , .

This, as Mr. Justice Mitchell said (Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287, 289 , ), “looks very much like permitting him to speculate upon the fraud of the other party.

To hold otherwise would be “virtually to allow a man to recover for self-inflicted injuries.” Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287 , , wherein the principle above announced was applied in an action between private individuals for fraud or deceit.

d Mr. Justice Brown in Mlnazek v. Libera, 83 Minn. 288 , , “that a party who has been induced by fraud to enter into a contract has the election of two remedies: (1) He may, upon discovering the fraud, rescind and repudiate the contract and demand to be placed in statu quo; or (2) he may affirm the contract and sue for damages caused and suffered by the fraud.” See Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287, 289 , .

It is fraudulent to allow a man to recover for self-inflicted injuries.” Mitchell, J., in Thompson v. Libby, 36 Minn. 287, 289 , .