Simerman v. Hackenkamp

Minnesota Supreme Court
Simerman v. Hackenkamp, 225 N.W. 915 (Minn. 1929)
178 Minn. 19; 1929 Minn. LEXIS 1113
PER CURIAM.

Can I rely on this case?

Yes — no negative treatment found

Based on 1 citing opinion

Analysis generated from citing opinions in this archive. Not legal advice.

Simerman v. Hackenkamp

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

After verdict for defendant, plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding. That motion was denied and judgment entered for defendant) from which plaintiff appeals. The case was argued and submitted with Simerman v. Habisch, 178 Minn. 15, 225 N. W. 913, opinion in which is filed herewith, and is so similar on its facts as to be controlled by that decision. Defendant’s testimony was that he signed what later appeared to be the promissory note in *20 suit upon the representation and believing that he was signing a paper only for the purpose of giving the stock salesmen his name and address.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
George A. Simerman v. Joseph Hackenkamp. [Fn1]
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published