Haarstad v. Gates

119 N.W. 390, 107 Minn. 565, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 604
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedFebruary 5, 1909
DocketNos. 15,808—(163)
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 119 N.W. 390 (Haarstad v. Gates) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Haarstad v. Gates, 119 N.W. 390, 107 Minn. 565, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 604 (Mich. 1909).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appeal is from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint.

It was alleged that the plaintiff, Haarstad, took one Peterson, who was afflicted with deforming rheumatism, to the so-called Gates Sanitarium, in the city of Minneapolis, and that the defendant, Gates, then examined Peterson and represented to the plaintiff that he (Gates) was a physician skilled and experienced in the treatment of persons suffering from diseases and physical infirmities, and was possessed of a certain secret power to cure diseases; that he was able to and could cure said Peterson of said deforming rheumatism ; that said Peterson was afflicted with a curable disease, and that the defendant was possessed of the knowledge, skill, and power to cure said Peterson of said disease; that defendant employed a special form of treatment of said diseases, and that, if plaintiff would pay the defendant the sum of $500 and would pay the board of said Peterson and his attendant, defendant could and would cure said Peterson of said disease; that said representations and each of them were false; that defendant made such representations, knowing them to be false, and with the intent to deceive plaintiff and induce him to pay thé money as hereinafter alleged; and that the plaintiff, believing such representations to be true, and relying thereon, was thereby induced to and did pay defendant, prior to January 1, 1908, the sum of $757; that by reason of the foregoing facts plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $800.

The complaint is far from being a model, but it states a cause of action, and the trial court properly overruled the demurrer.

Order affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Buchanan v. Dugan
82 A.2d 911 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1951)
McElrath v. Electric Investments Co.
131 N.W. 380 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
119 N.W. 390, 107 Minn. 565, 1909 Minn. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haarstad-v-gates-minn-1909.