Haarstad v. Gates
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 1911, 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.
- Buchanan v. Dugan (D.C. 1951)
- McElrath v. Electric Investments Co. (Minn. 1911)
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 appeal is from an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint.
It was alleged that the plaintiff, Haarstad, took one Peterson, who was afflicted with deforming rheumatism, to the so-called Gates Sanitarium, in the city of Minneapolis, and that the defendant, Gates, then examined Peterson and represented to the plaintiff that he (Gates) was a physician skilled and experienced in the treatment of persons suffering from diseases and physical infirmities, and was possessed of a certain secret power to cure diseases; that he was able to and could cure said Peterson of said deforming rheumatism ; that said Peterson was afflicted with a curable disease, and that the defendant was possessed of the knowledge, skill, and power to cure said Peterson of said disease; that defendant employed a special form of treatment of said diseases, and that, if plaintiff would pay the defendant the sum of $500 and would pay the board of said Peterson and his attendant, defendant could and would cure said Peterson of said disease; that said representations and each of them were false; that defendant made such representations, knowing them to be false, and with the intent to deceive plaintiff and induce him to pay thé money as hereinafter alleged; and that the plaintiff, believing such representations to be true, and relying thereon, was thereby induced to and did pay defendant, prior to January 1, 1908, the sum of $757; that by reason of the foregoing facts plaintiff has been damaged in the sum of $800.
The complaint is far from being a model, but it states a cause of action, and the trial court properly overruled the demurrer.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.