Simerman v. Hackenkamp
This text of 225 N.W. 915 (Simerman v. Hackenkamp) 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
After verdict for defendant, plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding. That motion was denied and judgment entered for defendant) from which plaintiff appeals. The case was argued and submitted with Simerman v. Habisch, 178 Minn. 15, 225 N. W. 913, opinion in which is filed herewith, and is so similar on its facts as to be controlled by that decision. Defendant’s testimony was that he signed what later appeared to be the promissory note in *20 suit upon the representation and believing that he was signing a paper only for the purpose of giving the stock salesmen his name and address.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
225 N.W. 915, 178 Minn. 19, 1929 Minn. LEXIS 1113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simerman-v-hackenkamp-minn-1929.