Josie v. A. C. Winnor & Co.
This text of 205 N.W. 63 (Josie v. A. C. Winnor & Co.) 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.
Opinion
The complaint alleges that defendants employed plaintiff to obtain for them certain timber-cutting permits on certain lands; that defendants-agreed to pay him $250; that he obtained the permits and has not been paid. The' answer alleges that plaintiff falsely represented that the timber contained at least 800 cords of balsam lath bolts; and that they had offered to rescind. Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial.
There is evidence in the case to sustain the verdict of $200 which is necessarily grounded upon the testimony to the effect that defendants agreed to pay $200 to plaintiff for his services in procuring the permits which cost $125. It was the privilege of the jury to accept such version of the transaction.
Error is claimed to have resulted from the exclusion of evidence, but following the exclusion the witness was permitted to give the same conversation which showed that the alleged false representation was a mere opinion and not a statement of fact. The other assignments of error are without merit.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
205 N.W. 63, 164 Minn. 523, 1925 Minn. LEXIS 1423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josie-v-a-c-winnor-co-minn-1925.