Volume 237 — Minnesota Reports

<bold>Corporations — manager — authority to bind corporation</bold>. <block_quote> Acme Register Company ordered plaintiff to recondition a printing press and equip it to do two-color printing. When the work was partly completed, Acme sold out its business to System Forms, Incoporated. The manager of Acme became the manager of System. Plaintiff was instructed by him to complete the work and bill System for the balance of the work. Evidence examined and <italic>held</italic> that the manager of System had authority to bind it for the balance of the work done after it became the owner of the press.</block_quote>

<bold>Workmen's compensation — compensable injury — aggravation of</bold> <bold>existing infirmity</bold>. <block_quote> 1. An injury which aggravates an existing infirmity is compensable.</block_quote> <bold>Same — proceeding for compensation — review — findings of</bold> <bold>industrial commission</bold>. <block_quote> 2. Where the opinions of medical experts are conflicting as to whether an injury has aggravated an existing infirmity, a question of fact arises, the determination of which by the industrial commission will not be disturbed unless consideration of the evidence and inferences permissible therefrom clearly requires reasonable minds to adopt a conclusion contrary to the one arrived at by the commission.</block_quote>

<bold>Fraud — false representations — liability</bold>. <block_quote> 1. In a real estate transaction, defendants may be held liable for fraud upon a showing that a false representation of a past or existing material fact, within their own knowledge or susceptible of knowledge, was made by defendants with knowledge of the falsity thereof and with intent to induce the person to whom it is made to act in reliance upon it, if plaintiffs did rely by acting to their damage.</block_quote> <bold>Appeal and error — review — determination of sufficiency of</bold> <bold>evidence — erroneous instruction not challenged</bold>. <block_quote> 2. The court gave an erroneous instruction as to damages, but, since it was not challenged by either party, it became the law of the case, and the sufficiency of the evidence of damages to support the verdict is to be determined in the light of the instruction given.</block_quote> <bold>Fraud — action — amount of damages — price agreed upon as</bold> <bold>evidence of value</bold>. <block_quote> 3. Where there is no evidence of the market value of what plaintiffs would have received if defendants' representation had been true (the rule of damages given by the court), the price agreed upon is strong evidence of the value as represented and is sufficient to support a verdict.</block_quote> <bold>Evidence — opinion evidence — expert witness</bold>. <block_quote> 4. Whether expert real estate witnesses were sufficiently acquainted with the property to qualify them to give their opinions as to its value is a question for determination by the trial court. In the instant case, the court did not abuse its discretion.</block_quote> <bold>Appeal and error — review — admission of evidence —</bold> <bold>prejudicial effect</bold>. <block_quote> 5. Other claimed errors in the admission of testimony considered and, whether properly received or not, <italic>held</italic> not prejudicial.</block_quote>

<bold>Prohibition — right to writ — jurisdiction of trial court —</bold> <bold>abuse of discretion</bold>.