Tretheway v. Hulett
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 1991, 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
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- Arden Hills North Homes Ass'n v. Pemtom, Inc. (Minn. Ct. App. 1991)
- Follingstad v. Syverson (Minn. 1926)
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
This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint. The question to be considered is whether the complaint shows a ease of actionable fraud on the part of the defendant in the sale of three lots of land to the plaintiff for the consideration of $200, and which the defendant assumed to convey by quitclaim deed. The fraud alleged consisted in representations by the defendant that the lots were worth the sum of $200, and that he had a perfect title, whereas in fact the lots were not of a value exceeding $15, as the defendant knew, and he had no title whatever, which he also well knew. A rescission of the sale is sought.
The complaint is insufficient to show a right of action for the misrepresentation as to the value of the land. Columbia Electric Co v. Dixon, 46 Minn. 463, (49 N. W. Rep. 244.) It was not enough, to justify the plaintiff in relying upon the vendor’s representation of value, that the plaintiff was unacquainted with the values'of real estate and of this property, while the defendant was well acquainted with such values. There does not appear to have been any reason why the plaintiff could not, without difficulty, and even without inconvenience, have informed himself concerning the value of the land; and under ordinary circumstances the rule of caveat emptor prevails, as respects representations of the vendor as to the value of the property sold.
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 54 N. W. Rep. 486.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.