Case Name: Lucy M. Doty vs. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co.
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1892-05-05
Citations: 49 Minn. 499
Docket Number: 
Parties: Lucy M. Doty vs. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 49
Pages: 499–500

Head Matter:
Lucy M. Doty vs. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co.
Argued April 20, 1892.
Decided May 5, 1892.
Evidence held to sustain verdict.
Appeal by plaintiff, Lucy M. Doty, from an order of the District Gourt of Dodge county, Buckham, L, made January 6, 1892, denying her motion for a new trial.
On May 9, 1889, plaintiff resided at Kenyon, and was working in the printing office of a local newspaper. In the evening of that day she went with her aunt to the station of the Chicago, St. Paul and Kansas City Railway at that place, to deliver a package to Mr. Ballard, who was expected on the evening train. While she was standing on the platform near the door of the waiting room the train came in, and baggage was unloaded near the door where plaintiff stood, there was no truck to receive it, and one of the trunks, as it .was tumbled out, fell over upon plaintiff’s left foot and injured it.
On July 29, 1889, plaintiff went to the office of the defendant in St. Paul, and received $ 100, in full settlement for her injuries, and gave a discharge of all claims. On August 29, 1892, she commenced this action, claiming that she was seriously and .permanently injured, and that the settlement was obtained by fraud and imposition. The jury returned a verdict for defendant. Plaintiff moved for a new trial, and, being denied, appealed.
John A. Lovely and Edgerton & Maclay, for appellant.
They cited Peterson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 36 Minn. 399, 38 Minn. 511; Bussian v. Milwaukee, L. S. & W. Ry. Co., 56 Wis. 325; Eagle Packet Co. v. Defries, 94 Ill. 598; Lewless v. Detroit, G. H. é M. Ry. Co., 65 Mich. 292; Stone v. Chicago é W. M. Ry. Co., 66 Mich. 76.
Lusk, Bunn & Hadley, for respondent.

Opinion:
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 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.-