Minnesota Supreme Court, 1902

Peterson v. Landahl

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided April 18, 1902 · Collins

86 Minn. 32; 89 N.W. 1131; 1902 Minn. LEXIS 436 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

Lindbergh & Blanchard, for appellant., Bergheim & Cameron, for respondents.

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 1927, 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

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Beers v. Atlas Assurance Co. (Wis. 1934)
Standard Lumber Co. v. Florida Industrial Co. (Fla. 1932)
Ganley Brothers, Inc. v. Butler Brothers Bldg. Co. (Minn. 1927)

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

COLLINS, J.

This action was brought by the vendees to rescind a written contract for the sale of land upon the ground of fraud and misrepresentation as to boundary lines, and to recover $200, which had been paid by them on account of the purchase price. The defendant vendor interposed a general demurrer to the complaint, and from an order overruling the same he appealed.

The contract — made a part of the complaint — contained this clause:

“It is hereby declared and agreed by the parties of the second part that they have entered into the above written contract relying entirely upon their own knowledge of the said lands, and not upon any representation made by the party of the first part, or by any other person, touching the situation, character, or quality thereof.”

To escape the binding effect of this provision, plaintiffs alleged certain matters in avoidance, and the real question here is whether it sufficiently appeared that they did not know that said clause was in the contract when they signed it, and that this want of knowledge was not caused by their own negligence or fault, but, *33on the other hand, was caused by the fraud and misrepresentation of defendant. We think it is sufficiently alleged in paragraph five that they did not know that this clause was a part of the contract, • and that this want of knowledge was not the result of their own neglect, but in- fact was brought about by the alleged false representations of the defendant that the contract accurately and truthfully described, the land for which they had bargained. It is impossible that plaintiffs could believe the statements of the defendant to be true, and could rely upon them, as it is alleged they did, with a knowledge that the contract contained the clause in question, or without having been misled and imposed upon by defendant’s statements as to its contents. While the complaint is not a model, and could have easily been made more definite and certain, we are of tjie opinion that it stated a cause of action, and that the allegations found in said paragraph meet the contention of counsel, before referred to, in respect to its insufficiency.

Order affirmed.

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