Minnesota Supreme Court, 1892

Doty v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co.

Doty v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co.
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided May 5, 1892 · Gilbtllan
49 Minn. 499; 52 N.W. 135; 1892 Minn. LEXIS 210 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

John A. Lovely and Edgerton & Maclay, for appellant., Lusk, Bunn & Hadley, for respondent.

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 1910, 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

Doty v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

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

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*500ant 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.-

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.