Peterson v. Chi., M. & St. P. Ry. Co.

• Citation: 31 N.W. 515,36 Minn. 399
• Parties: PETERSON v CHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.
• Decision Date: 11 February 1887
• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)

36 Minn. 399

31 N.W. 515

PETERSONvCHICAGO, M. & ST. P. RY. CO.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

February 11, 1887.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Plaintiff was injured while a passenger on defendant's road. She executed to defendant a release in consideration of $225, $25 of which was paid to her at the time of the release, and $200 the next day. She claims that she was induced to execute the release by false representations of defendant. The court below, in its charge, submitted to the jury two representations as grounds on which she could avoid the release. As to one of these representations she had learned its falsity, and knew the facts, when she received the $200. Held error in the court to submit that representation to the jury as an independent ground to avoid the release.¹

Appeal from district court, Winona county.

Action against a railroad company to recover damages for negligence.

Wilson & Bowers, for respondent, Peterson.

Wm. Gale, for appellant, Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

Action for an injury to plaintiff's person, caused, as plaintiff claims, by the negligence of defendant, in respect to its duty as a common carrier of passengers, to have a safe place for them to alight from its cars; plaintiff having been such a passenger, and having been injured while alighting from, or immediately after alighting from, the cars. After a denial of the allegations of fact constituting the cause of action, the answer alleges a release by plaintiff of the alleged cause of action in consideration of $225, paid by defendant to plaintiff. The plaintiff, in reply, admits the execution of the release, but alleges that she was induced to execute it by false and fraudulent representations, (set forth in the reply,) made to her by the defendant's agent, and that she had rescinded the release, and elected to treat it as void, and had tendered a return to defendant of the money paid her for the release. There was a verdict for the plaintiff.

The release was executed July 24, 1885. Of the $225, $25 was paid to her at the time, and the remainder, $200, the next day. One of the representations alleged to have been false and fraudulent, and relied on to sustain her claim of right to avoid the release, was that action had not been commenced against defendant for the injury. It is not disputed that, after signing the release and receiving the $25, and before receiving the $200, she learned that such action had been commenced, and, consequently, when she received the $200, she knew that the representation was false. A contract which a party is induced by fraudulent representations to enter into is voidable, and he may, after learning of the fraud, elect either to rescind it or to abide by it. If, after learning of the fraud, he takes benefits under it, that is an election to abide by the contract, and he cannot afterwards allege the fraud in order to avoid the...