Nat'l Cash Register Co. v. Merrigan

• Decision Date: 25 February 1921
• Docket Number: No. 22084.,22084.
• Citation: 148 Minn. 270,181 N.W. 585
• Parties: NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. v. MERRIGAN.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

148 Minn. 270

181 N.W. 585

NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO.

v.MERRIGAN.

No. 22084.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 25, 1921.

Appeal from District Court, Todd County; John A. Roeser, Judge.

Action by the National Cash Register Company against L. J. Merrigan. Motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdit was denied, and from the judgment entered plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a party asks for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but not for a new trial, the only question he may raise on appeal is whether the evidence is conclusive against the verdict. Objections to the pleadings or to the charge of the court will not be considered.

A party, induced to execute a written instrument upon the false representation that it expresses the real agreement between the parties, may resits its enforcement by the other party even though he was negligent in signing it. No proof of damage is necessary.

The evidence makes the question of fraud a question for the jury. Where, after a verbal agreement, one party undertakes to prepare the written contract, the presentation of the writing for signature is a representation that it is the same in effect as their oral contract. Fred W. Reed, of Minneapolis, for appellant.

F. C. McGivern, of Staples, for respondent.

HALLAM, J.

This is an action on a promissory note given for the price of a cash register. The defense is that defendant's signature to the note was procured by fraud. The jury found for defendant. Plaintiff moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, but not for a new trial. This motion was denied. From a judgment entered on the verdict plaintiff appealed.

1. Where a party asks, not for a new trial, but only for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the only question he may raise on appeal from an order denying his motion is whether the evidence is conclusive against the verdict. If there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain the verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict will not be ordered. Cruikshank v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 75 Minn. 266, 77 N. W. 958;Northwestern Marble & Tile Co. v. Williams, 128 Minn. 514, 151 N. W. 419, L. R. A. 1915D, 1077. Objection that the cause of action was not well pleaded will not be considered (Bennett v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 115 Minn. 128, 131, 131 N. W. 1066), nor will objection to the court's charge to the jury (Helmer v. Shevlin-Mathieu Lumber Co., 129 Minn. 25, 151 N. W. 421).

2. The law is well settled that where a party is fraudulently induced to execute a written instrument upon the false representation that it expresses the agreement which they have made, he may defend against its enforcement by the other party, if the rights of third parties have not intervened, even though he may have acted negligently in signing his name. Maxfield v. Schwartz, 45 Minn. 150, 47 N. W. 448,10 L. R. A. 606;Eggleston v. Advance Thresher Co., 96 Minn. 241, 104 N. W. 891. No pleading or proof of damage is necessary. MacLaren v. Cochran, 44 Minn. 255, 46 N. W. 408;Ludowese v. Amidon, 124 Minn. 288, 292, 144 N. W. 965. Section 6015, G. S. 1913, did not change this rule. Hinkley, v. Freick, 112 Minn. 239, 127 N. W. 940.

[3] 3. We think the evidence made a case for the jury, at least there was some competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain a verdict for the defendant. Defendant's evidence of fraud was substantially as follows: Defendant conducts a small grocery store at Staples, Minn. He testified, that plaintiff's agent, Leffholm, came to his store while he was busy waiting on customers, and negotiated for the sale of a cash register, that defendant told him he had a secondhand machine in view, but finally agreed to give plaintiff an order for a new machine, reserving the right to cancel the order within 10 days if he saw fit...