Humphrey v. Merriam
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1931, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
8 later published cases cite this decision.
- Gray v. Gurney Seed & Nursery Co. (S.D. 1933)
- Olesen v. Retzlaff (Minn. 1931)
- Barthelemy v. Foley Elevator Co. (Minn. 1919)
- Harris v. Simplex Tractor Co. (Minn. 1918)
- Needham v. Halverson (N.D. 1912)
- Sheets v. Prosser (N.D. 1907)
- French v. R. P. Smith & Sons Co. (Minn. 1900)
- Humphrey v. Merriam (Minn. 1891)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The complaint in this action sets forth the purchase by plaintiff from defendant of certain shares of the capital stock of a corporation, the real value of which depended upon the value of a mine then owned by said corporation in Dakota; that said defendant, by his agent, for the purpose of inducing plaintiff to make the purchase, with intent to cheat and defraud plaintiff, did falsely and fraudulently represent and warrant certain things (fully detailed) about said mine,, which were in fact untrue, and so known to be by defendant; and did also, upon the same day, in person, by an instrument in writing, falsely and knowingly, with the aforesaid intent, represent and warrant that-no assessments had been made, or were soon to be made, against said stock, which was also untrue. Further allegations follow, as to plaintiff’s reliance upon said representations, and that upon discovery of' their false and fraudulent character he offered to return, etc. To-this complaint said defendant demurred, upon the ground of misjoin-der of causes of action, viz., a cause of action for deceit, and a cause of action for breach of warranty.
Under the first subdivision of section 118, chapter 66, Gen. St. 1878, the plaintiff is permitted to unite several causes of action whem they are included in “the same transaction or transactions connected with the same subject of action.” And under this subdivision an.
Order affirmed.
Mitchell, J., being absent during the argument, took no part in this case.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.