cl-8012503
Precedential
Affirmed
Processed
Doty v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co.
Cited by
- I. J. Bartlett Co. v. Ness 195 N.W. 39 Minn. 1923
- Rantala v. Haish 156 N.W. 666 Minn. 1916
- Nelson v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. 126 N.W. 902 Minn. 1910
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Cowles v. Canfield 52 N.W. 135
Opinion text
Gilbtllan, C. J. There was not a particle of evidence in the case from which the jury might determine that any agent of the defend *500 ant had made any fraudulent representation to plaintiff to induce her to execute the release pleaded in defense. What was said to her by Dr. Millard was merely the expression of his opinion as to the cure of her injury, and there is nothing to suggest the opinion was not given with the utmost good faith. There is nothing in either assignment of .error. (Opinlon published 52 N. W. Rep. 135 .) Order affirmed.-