Cited by

8 Knappen v. Freeman, a case involving unauthorized acts by one spouse, the supreme court rejected the wife’s argument that her husband’s representations did not bind her, even though she “did nothing whatever personally in the matter until, by executing the conveyance, she accepted and availed herself of the results of the negotiations of her husband and [a real-estate agent].” 47 Minn. 491, 495, 50 N.W.

* * *’ ” In Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491, 493 , , Mr. Chief Justice Gilfillan in discussing what it is necessary for a party to do when he seeks to rescind a contract by his own act, said: “* * * When a party seeks to rescind a contract by his own act, he must give the other party notice of his rescission, and restore or offer to restore to

7 Freeman v. F. P. Harbaugh Co. 114 Minn. 283 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co. 145 Minn. 142 , ; Atherton v. Barber, 112 Minn. 523 , ; Luebke v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co. 178 Minn. 40 , .

Raymond v. McKenzie, 220 Minn. 234 , 19 N. W. (2d) 423 ; Mitchell v. Rende, 225 Minn. 145 , 30 N. W. (2d) 27 ; Associated Cinemas v. World Amusement Co. 201 Minn. 94 , ; Close v. Crossland, 47 Minn. 500 , ; Reliance Engineers Co. v. Flaherty, 211 Minn. 233 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; First Nat.

Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Freeman v. F. P. Harbaugh Co. 114 Minn. 283 , ; Roseberry v. Hart-Parr Co. 145 Minn. 142 , ; Pioneer Elec.

Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Kirby v. Dean, supra.

Martin v. Hill, 41 Minn. 337 , ; MacLaren v. Cochran, 44 Minn. 255 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Pennington v. Roberge, 122 Minn. 295 , ; Fawkes v. Scott, 138 Minn. 384 , ; Kirby v. Dean, 159 Minn. 451 , .

“Where one has a right to rescission * * * on the ground of fraud * * * the value of the property is immaterial.” Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , .

In the language of Chief Justice Gilfillan, in Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , , the waivers were the instrumentalities by which appellant obtained the fruits of a transaction which it now proposes to disaffirm.

Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; I. L. Corse & Co. v. Minnesota Grain Co. 94 Minn. 331 , .

1912D, 1082; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Althoff v. Torrison, 140 Minn. 8 , ; C. W. La Moure v. Cuyuna-Mille Lacs Iron Co. 147 Minn. 433 , .

Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; 3 Notes on Minn. Reports 660, and citations.

Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , .

485; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Freeman v. F. P. Harbaugh Co. 114 Minn. 283 , ; Bunkers v. Peters, 122 Minn. 130 , ; Schlecter v. Felton, 134 Minn. 143 , , L.R.A.

Co. 40 Minn. 476 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Atherton v. Barber, 112 Minn. 523 , 128 N W. 827, 21 Ann. Cas.

485; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Hedin v. Minneapolis & S. I. 62 Minn. 146 , , 35 L.R.A.

Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , (representation that land is high and rolling and fit for cultivation); Schmeisser v. Albinson, 119 Minn. 428 , (character of soil and amount of crop previous year); Petrie v. Clarke, 126 Minn. 119 , Drake v. Fairmont Drain Tile & Brick Co. 129 M

Martin v. Hill, 41 Minn. 337 , ; MacLaren v. Cochran, 44 Minn. 255 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Nelson v. Carlson, 54 Minn. 90 , ; Pennington v. Roberge, 122 Minn. 295 , .

upra, it is held that a purchaser is entitled to rescind when he does not get what he, from the seller’s representations, believed he was getting, and also in such case, it is not necessary to show damages in dollars and cents, “it is only necessary to show it so material as to justify the conclusion that, had the purchasers known it, they would not have made the purchase.” In Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , , the syllabus is: “When one has a right to a rescission on the ground of fraud, in a

Carlton v. Hulett, 49 Minn. 308 , , and in the second appeal Carlton v. Carey, 61 Minn. 318 , ; Knappen v. Freeman, 41 Minn. 491 , ; Nelson v. Carlson, 54 Minn. 90 , .

485; Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , .

The responsibility of the wife for the acts of her husband, under similar circumstances, ivas expressly passed on in Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , , where it was held that when a married woman employs her husband to negotiate a sale of her real estate, and in such negotiations he makes false representations, in an action by the purchaser to rescind the sale, the representations are to be held as though made by herself.

Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ; Nelson v. Carlson, 54 Minn. 90 , Mlnazek v. Libera, 83 Minn. 288 , ; 9 Cyc.

Keyes v. Clare, 40 Minn. 84 , ; Holmes v. Campbell, 12 Minn. 141 (221); Washburn v. Winslow, 16 Minn. 19 (33); Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , .

This point is fully covered by the case of Knappen v. Freeman, 47 Minn. 491 , ( 50 N. W. Rep.