Cited by

Co. 38 Minn. 511 , ; 7 Dunnell, Dig.

Co. 38 Minn. 511 , ; Cooper v. St.

Co. 38 Minn. 511, 515 , , there is a distinction between the admissibility of opinion evidence and the reasonable certainty required to justify an award of damages for permanent injuries.

38 Minn. 511 , ; Christianson v. C. St.

Co. 38 Minn. 511 , ; Hedin v. Minneapolis M. & S. Institute, 62 Minn. 146 , ; Nelson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry.

Co. 38 Minn. 511 , 39 N. W. *447 485 , it was held that, where the party making the release received part of the money after hearing of the falsity of a representation made to induce the same, that misrepresentation could not be relied upon as a ground of avoidance of the release.

Co. 36 Minn. 399 , ; 38 Minn. 511 , .

Co., 38 Minn. 511 , ; Jones v. Chicago, St.

Co., 38 Minn. 511 , ; McKnight v. Chicago, M. & St.

Co., 38 Minn. 511 , ; McKnight v. Chicago, M. & St.

Co., 38 Minn. 511 , ; McKnight v. Chicago, M. & St.

This court has held that in answering a hypothetical question embodying a person’s assumed symptoms and conditions, as testified to by others, a medical expert may give his opinion as to the probability of recovery (Peterson v. Chicago, 38 Minn. 511 , ); also that a physician who has heard the testimony as to the manner in which the plaintiff was injured, the kind of injuries inflicted and his present bodily condition, may give an opinion, based on that evidence, as to the cause of plaintiff’s c

Co., 38 Minn. 511 , ( 39 N. W. Rep.