*1 injured a hardship imposed persons by strict, or narrow, a technical construction of statute charter so harsh in re or its quirements. I am accord with views expressed by appel late division of the supreme court of New York v. City McIntee Middletown, 434, Div. 81 N. App. 126, Y. S. 124, where, after stating that these short in derogation limitations are of the common law, the court said: object of statutes this character is to plain provide
“The city guard against which a better by may imposition means unfounded claims at once informed being of their so existence, readily pursue officers the more investigation if longer their merits than postponed. It could not have been the purpose legislature of the deny party injured negli gence of city any remedy against it, nor to unnecessarily emb arrass parties in the enforcement rights, of their tendency and the of the decisions is to hold that a compliance substantial is all that is necessary in cases this character.”
Devaney, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I agree with Mr. Loring. Justice
KENNETH v. KEMPER HACKENJOS CHEVROLET
COMPANY.1 30,125.
No.
December
1 Reported in
257 N. W.
Alvin Markham, B. for appellant. and E. James Christofferson Fred Silverstein, for respondent.
Holt, Justice. in the alter- denying its motion from order
Defendant appeals verdict, trial. or a new notwithstanding the judgment native for inducing for and misrepresentation The action to recover deceit of a truck from de plaintiff purchase to enter a contract for the and had in its one corporation employ fendant. Defendant is a pleadings John who dealt with From the and plaintiff. Blomgren, February evidence for that on he went plaintiff appears to place of in to an response defendant’s business advertisement that day Press, reading: in Paul Pioneer appearing the St. job real for Í trucks, to finance have
“Men with little morning. Hurry. Blomgren, Kemper Thursday See starting trucks E. 7th.” 801 Chevrolet. garage job were at defendant’s in the interested persons
Several day. made for next was appointment An came. plaintiff when other men over to where and four took then being men were was built. The Minneapolis in office post for haul concrete the construction to by Blomgren told months; they to from 5 would officewould last post of the 3V2 7 day, days 12 hours a week, the truck to work with have After work and viewing and 90 cents an hour. on receive Blomgren that it kind represented, assurance of plaintiff, February sign was induced to conditional sales (cid:127)for purchase a second-hand truck of defendant for $760.50. Plaintiff car as payment turned and paid $146 $100 in two payments, change cash in the box $8.50 make.a of the truck so as to make it suitable to haul the concrete. also He paid out for for license the truck. The balance was to be $21.88 paid monthly payments. Plaintiff testified that when Blomgren was asked how provided sure he was that would be work, worry that, said: “Don’t about will plenty we have 3y2 work for you, will that you we see work enough have for months and provide your pay for truck and provide a living you for besides.” There was also corroboration plaintiff’s testimony that Blomgren represented that post office 90 cents an hour for 12 day days hours a a week was avail 3y2 able to 5 months. As a matter fact Blom *3 gren did not know job whether the any referred to would last of length time. He so testified. Of he alleged course denies the misrepresentation and claims that he knew nothing about job; the that he merely took the men to the or contractor man charge .in and introduced plaintiff and the other four men to Mm stepped and out of hearing. truck day buying
The after the went to the office post and, with a Minneapolis, crew, put site was to hauling concrete. job a 12-hour a for 7 day days The work was not in the week. It extremely and all the sporadic, was time could have from February 24 to first of up part April, the 1933, amounted to $102.80 At 90 cents hour. the time contractor erecting post the officediscarded the use these small trucks in hauling the concrete and other to adopted transporting places means where the poured. payment Before the came due on the conditional sales firsf to contract, defendant transferred it a so-called company. finance job produce Because the did not what defendant represented, plain tiff was unable .to make and any payments, the finance company promptly repossessed the truck. The result was that lost what he induced to parted purchase with when the truck.
40 the trial save to during rulings to exception no
There was exceptions and no defendant, favor a verdict to direct refusal trial cer motion for a In the given. when charge taken error assignment principal The challenged. are tain instructions deceit actionable that no proposition directed is this court defendant hence proved; were representations or fraudulent non judgment have now and should a directed entitled to representa fraudulent alleged that the is argument otstante. The and that future, work supply to promises related tions promises such made that defendant not show the evidence does in action element essential not to them—an keep with the intention v. Bigelow decisions as such fraud, as indicated promissory able 203; L.R.A.(N.S.) 1082, W. 45 Minn. 140 N. Barnes, 148, 522; 215 N. W. 666, 214 N. W. 492, 171 Minn. Maguire, v. Maguire 682; N. W. Bank, v. Aurora State Phelps 623; 254 N. W. 191 Minn. McCreight Davey v. Tree Co. Expert But the 255 N. Crosby Crescent Co. 192 Minn. W. v. Oil to enter the misrepresentation inducing plaintiff fraud and considered not be part car misrepresenta as as a promise provide future, a work in the but hauling tion of job. the character of then existing concrete as to present represented was a fact. Was it of the sort working per day time and week and duration?
witness stand admitted he had no that it would last assurance for any length of deceive time. The advertisement itself tends to into reader the belief that a worth was to be had while any man who-could raise a purchase little finance a truck. Defendant had sale, trucks for and if a could person finance purchase of one of its trucks would of good be sure It job. readily perceived how a man "in of employment want *4 would do his utmost to raise the little needed to finance the purchase so that he could the secure was of a sort to pay which for the truck and at the same time provide living. Representa tions that such a awaiting plaintiff were not true. The job was not of that sort. testified. think so We the related to facts and existing were not in the misrepresentations was not in the future. This something to do promises nature used in the de in the sense of promissory representations a case Wilkes, referred to Holmes v. cisions above facts. N. W. nearer in on the point is supported by not the evidence.
The verdict is also assailed as rescinded and the induced fraud could have been contract at once appears in statu But that defendant placed quo. parties to a finance com over or sold the so-called turned sales the truck because was unable pany, repossessed which In or loss monthly payment. damage make the that situation the with. — parted be considered value of what he the in the damages quo the measure of case rescission where status which parted Dodge car, cannot be achieved. Plaintiff says cash, spent was considered worth $146, $100 $8.50 paid truck, for change license, some the all $21.88 $276.38. charged jury The court that a up the could be $376.90 for if returned in his favor. The verdict with interest returned was Defendant admits juggled that it figures the $397.31. so as to the amount look larger make and more attractive finance than actual company transaction; price so on the truck the conditional sales contract was at" placed $1,009.40in actual price $760.50, stead and the down payment at instead what was the agreed value of $346.40 the Dodge car and amount of with. parted We think the instruction was wrong as to the limit of recovery, that the evidence does not a verdict more than $276.38, warrant with interest since the action. commencement remanded with
The cause is direction to court below to re- amount just the verdict stated, duce and as so reduced the affirmed. order will stand Application Reargument.
On For January 15, 1935, opinion following On was filed: Per Curiam. for a rehearing, petitions claiming
Defendant the verdict, court, as reduced this than larger even the evidence warrants *5 in at the Dodge car taken shows an exhibit in that testified that in the deal the But also price $85. . justified reducing not We are valued car was $146 could award jury amount the under the highest below . evidence think the clerk’s taxation of costs. We from appeals Plaintiff for no statutory $25, costs of not be allowed defendant should permitted which taken at the trial to instruction exception was verdict; in the motion an excessive nor to render jury it was claimed excessive the amount which to be trial was appeal The taxation for two bonds cannot be sus out. pointed It true “in all shall be prevailing tained. cases party Mason necessarily paid (2 allowed his disbursements or incurred” 1927, 9486). St. But there was no need of two bonds on § The appeal. supersedeas bond should have been given place. first clerk is directed to reduce the costs So $35. reduced the taxation is affirmed.
CENTRAL WAREHOUSE LUMBER COMPANY v. REDLINGER
& HANSEN COMPANY.1
December 1934. 30,126. No. 1 Reported in 257 W.N.