Hanson v. Northern States Power Co.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30873. |
| Parties | HANSON v. NORTHERN STATES POWER CO. et al. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Hennepin County; Mathias Baldwin, Judge.
Action by Helen Hanson against Northern States Power Company and others. From an order granting the defendants' motion to strike the plaintiff's reply and for judgment on the pleading, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court .
1. Where plaintiff made a contract with defendant releasing her claims against them in return for defendants' paying to her husband a substantial sum for damages incurred to his property and person, held, consideration for the plaintiff's release appears as a matter of law.
2. Where defendants settled with plaintiff's husband with the view of quieting all possible claims arising out of the accident, and did not have plaintiff examined nor consult her to determine whether she had suffered injuries held, the release signed by plaintiff cannot be set aside on the ground that there was mutual mistake as to unknown injuries.
3. Where the reply set up incompetency of plaintiff as a ground for avoiding the release, under the particular circumstances held, not error to strike the reply as sham.
Hanson & Willcox, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Briggs, Weyl & Briggs, of St. Paul, and A. M. Lystad, of Minneapolis, for respondents.
Action to recover demages for injuries received in an automobile accident.
It is alleged that while riding with her husband and two guests in their family automobile on a highway near the village of Rockford, plaintiff received severe injuries when the car ran into a ditch and against a pole on the side of the road. It is claimed that the accident was caused by the negligence of one Mike Rosland, repairman for the defendant company, who allegedly had left his car parked in the center of the highway while he was making some repairs on the power lines running along the side thereof. Plaintiff asserts that her husband was obliged to run into the ditch because of the manner in which the defendants' car was parked.
Shortly after this occurrence, in 1930, Conrad Hanson, plaintiff's husband, commenced an action to recover damages allegedly sustained to his automobile and person.
On or about January 9, 1931, Mr. Hanson's attorneys commenced negotiations with defendants' attorneys. The result of these negotiations was that defendants offered to pay the sum of $400 in full compromise and settlement of the claims of all four of the occupants of the auto. A joint release was prepared by the defendants, which was later signed by all four persons concerned, in the office of Mr. Hanson's attorneys.
Mrs. Hanson, plaintiff in this action, commenced suit four years after the signing of the above-mentioned release. Defendants answered denying liability, setting up the settlement agreement and the release. Plaintiff replied, denying the signing of the release, denying consideration for such signing, alleging that she was mentally incompetent to enter into such an agreement, and alleging mutual mistake as to the nature and extent of her injuries.
Defendants moved to strike plaintiff's reply and for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that it was sham and false and that plaintiff was guilty of laches. The court entered an order granting defendants' motion. This is an appeal from the court's order.
We believe it is clear that plaintiff signed the release in question. It is equally clear that the question of laches has no proper place in this discussion. Plaintiff brought her action within six years of the time of the accident, the period of the statute of limitations, and there is no ground upon which the claim of laches can be based.
Only three questions require discussion: (1) Was there consideration for the release? (2) Was there mutual mistake as to the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries? (3) Is there any issue as to the mental incompetency of the plaintiff at the time of the signing of the release?
1. Plaintiff contends that the release is not binding upon her because she received no consideration for the signing thereof. It is her claim that her husband's attorneys were not her attorneys, that the sum paid to her husband was for his injuries alone, and that she received no part thereof. In support of this contention, plaintiff stresses the fact that the draft for the sum agreed upon was ‘ payable only to Conrad Hanson-and ourselves as attorneys for him.’
Resolving every doubt as to the facts in favor of the position of plaintiff, nevertheless we are compelled to the conclusion that consideration for plaintiff's signature appears as a matter of law. Plaintiff made a contract with the defendants releasing her claims against them, in return for defendants' paying to her husband a substantial sum, considered by all at the time to be fair and adequate compensation for damages incurred to his property and person. It is not necessary that the consideration be paid directly to the contracting party. This question was settled in West v. Kidd, 184 Minn. 494, 239 N.W. 157, wherein this precise question was determined. The court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial