Case ID: minn_164/html/0523-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM M. JOSIE v. A. C. WINNOR AND COMPANY.
    
    September 25, 1925.
    No. 24,788.
    Evidence of false representations immaterial.
    Action for services in obtaining timber-cutting permits on certain land. Answer alleged false representations as to amount of specified timber on land, which was denied by reply. No error by exclusion of testimony when same witness was later allowed to give excluded conversation which showed that representation claimed to be false was not statement of fact but mere opinion. Verdict founded on evidence will not be reversed on appeal. [Reporter.]
    1. See Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. p. 853, § 2834.
    2. See Appeal and Error, 4 C. J. p. 1016, § 3000.
    
      Action in the district court for Hennepin county. The case was tried before Montgomery, J., and a jury which returnee} a verdict in favor of plaintiff. Defendant appealed from an order denying its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
    Affirmed.
    
      H. S. McGinley, for appellant.
    
      Robert R. Odell, for respondent.
    
      
       Reported in 205 N. W. 63.
    
   PER CURIAM.

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.