Hedin v. Med

• Decision Date: 06 August 1895
• Citation: 64 N.W. 158,62 Minn. 146
• Parties: HEDIN v. MINNEAPOLIS MEDICAL & SURGICAL INST. ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

62 Minn. 146

64 N.W. 158

HEDIN

v.MINNEAPOLIS MEDICAL & SURGICAL INST. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 6, 1895.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. False statements and representations, to warrant an action for deceit, must be, generally speaking, as to a material fact or facts, susceptible of knowledge; and, if they appear to be mere expressions of opinion upon matters of conjecture and uncertainty, they are not actionable.But there are many cases in which the false assertion of an opinion will amount to fraud.

2. Thus, where a party possesses special learning or knowledge on the subject with respect to which he expresses an opinion, a false statement and representation made to one who is ignorant upon the subject, where deception is designed and injury follows from reliance upon such an opinion, will support the action.

3. The evidence in this action was sufficient to support the verdict in plaintiff's favor.

Appeal from district court, Hennepin county; Henry G. Hicks, Judge.

Action by Peter Hedin against the Minneapolis Medical & Surgical Institute and others for deceit. There was a verdict for plaintiff, and, from an order denying their motions for new trial, defendants severally appeal. Affirmed.

Chas. G. Laybourn, for appellants.

W. A. Lancaster and Lancaster & Bush, for respondent.

COLLINS, J.

This is an action for deceit. Defendant institute is a corporation, while defendant Lawrence is its president, the physician and surgeon in charge, and the person with whom plaintiff dealt, and to whom he paid the sum of $500 for medical treatment, which sum he alleges was obtained by defendants through false and fraudulent representations to him that certain injuries from which he was then suffering were curable, and that at the institute they could and would cure him for that amount of money. No question has been made as to the sufficiency of the complaint. Plaintiff had a verdict for $500 and interest, and defendants severally appeal from an order refusing a new trial. Thirty-seven errors have been specified in appellants' brief, nearly all relating to the rulings of the trial court when the evidence was being taken. We have examined these specifications of error with care, and, notwithstanding the elaborate argument and evident sincerity of defendants' counsel, we are compelled to say that very few are entitled to special reference. The real question in the case is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and this depends mainly on an inquiry as to whether the statements and representations alleged to have been made, and said to have been relied upon, were actionable. According to the evidence, these were made by defendant Lawrence, and to the effect that the plaintiff's injuries could be cured, and that he could and would be made sound and well if he placed himself under treatment at the institute. Counsel for defendant contends that, at most, these statements were but expressions of opinion as to matters contingent and uncertain in their very nature, not susceptible of certain determination or of actual ascertainment; therefore no action as for deceit can be maintained upon them. To sustain such an action, it must be shown that a false representation of a material fact has been made, in ignorance relied upon, and that damage has ensued. The representation must be fraudulently made, an intention to deceive being a necessary element or ingredient. But positive proof that a party knew his representation to be untrue is not essential. The intention may be proved by showing that, having no knowledge of the truth or falsity of his statements, he did not believe them to be true, or by showing that, having no knowledge of their truth or falsity, yet he represented them to be true, of his own knowledge. When the knowingly false assertion is as to the belief of a party, or is as to his knowledge of the fact he assumes to announce, intent to deceive is the inevitable inference. If this defendant Lawrence made statements and representations to plaintiff that his injuries were curable, and that with treatment he could become a well and sound man, having no knowledge of the truth or falsity of his statements, and not believing them to be true, or if he made such...