Case Name: ALTON J. MILTON v. JOHN H. GREER and Another
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 1915-01-29
Citations: 128 Minn. 533
Docket Number: Nos. 18,977—(201)
Parties: ALTON J. MILTON v. JOHN H. GREER and Another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Minnesota Reports
Volume: 128
Pages: 533–533

Head Matter:
ALTON J. MILTON v. JOHN H. GREER and Another.
January 29, 1915.
Nos. 18,977—(201).
Exchange of property — evidence.
Action to rescind, exchange of property because of fraudulent misrepresentations. Judgment in favor of plaintiff. Seld: The evidence justifies the decision and the court did not err in overruling objections to the admission, .of certain evidence. [Reporter.]
Action in the district court for Hennepin county for the reconveyance of certain real estate. The case was tried before Molyneux, J., who denied defendants’* motion to dismiss the’ action, made findings and ordered judgment in- favor of plaintiff. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment; defendants appealed.
Affirmed.
O. M. Peabody, for appellants.
Latham & Pidgeon, for respondent.
Reported in 150 N. W. 1102.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
• The parties to this action made an exchange of properties whereby plaintiff conveyed to defendant John H. Greer 120 acres .of timber land in the state of Washington, and defendants conveyed to plaintiff 40 acres- of land in Renville county, Minnesota, and a lot in a suburb of Minneapolis. Neither party saw or examined the property of the other -before making the exchange. Shortjy after examining the property which he had' acquired, plaintiff brought this action, in which he alleged that Greer had fraudulently misrepresented the condi-r tion,' character and value of such • property and • the amount of a ditch lien against the 40-acre tract, and that he, plaintiff, had relied ' upon -.such reprer sentations in making the exchange, and asked for a rescission of the transaction. The trial court found the facts to be as claimed by plaintiff and rendered judgment granting the relief demanded. Defendants who are husband and wife took a joint appeal from the judgment. The questions-presented for consideration by the assignments of error are whether the findings are sustained by the evidence, and whether the court erred in overruling objections to the admission of certain evidence. We have examined the record with care and find that the evidence fully justifies the conclusions of the trial court, and that the rulings assigned as error were correct.
Judgment affirmed.