Josie v. A. C. Winnor & Co.
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 1925, 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
1 later published case cites 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
The complaint alleges that defendants employed plaintiff to obtain for them certain timber-cutting permits on certain lands; that defendants-agreed to pay him $250; that he obtained the permits and has not been paid. The' answer alleges that plaintiff falsely represented that the timber contained at least 800 cords of balsam lath bolts; and that they had offered to rescind. Defendant appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding or a new trial.
There is evidence in the case to sustain the verdict of $200 which is necessarily grounded upon the testimony to the effect that defendants agreed to pay $200 to plaintiff for his services in procuring the permits which cost $125. It was the privilege of the jury to accept such version of the transaction.
Error is claimed to have resulted from the exclusion of evidence, but following the exclusion the witness was permitted to give the same conversation which showed that the alleged false representation was a mere opinion and not a statement of fact. The other assignments of error are without merit.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.