Behrendt v. Rassmussen, 234 Minn. 97 (1951)

Citation: Behrendt v. Rassmussen, 234 Minn. 97 (1951)
Parent Document: Behrendt v. Rassmussen, 234 Minn. 97 (1951)
Jurisdiction: Minnesota (state)
Effective Date: 1951-04-27
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2038236/behrendt-v-rassmussen/ ↗

Full Text

867 chars

Whether a cause of action in fraud and deceit can be spelled out of the complaint or can find support in the evidence is our next inquiry. There is no allegation in the complaint that plaintiffs relied on defendant’s representation in his notice to vacate that he needed the premises for his own use. A necessary element of a deceit action by the tenant is proof of reliance on the representations of the landlord. Wann v. Northwestern Trust Co. 120 Minn. 493, 139 N. W. 1061. Most of the cases which have allowed a recovery in a cause of action for deceit involved situations where the tenant, without litigation, either vacated voluntarily upon receipt of an eviction notice or after a hearing before the price administrator on a landlord’s petition for a certificate of eviction. The earlier OPA statute required a certificate of eviction from the price admin *105

Other Sections in This Document (55)

Full Text