
    ROBERT C. GILCHRIST AND ANOTHER v. HARRY GENSLER.
    
    January 16, 1925.
    No. 24,142.
    Verdict sustained awarding damages for misrepresentations in sale of fur coat. [Reporter.]
    Action in the municipal court of Minneapolis to recover $200. The case was tried before Nordbye, J., and a jury which returned a verdict of $150. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied on condition plaintiffs consented to a reduction of the verdict to $100. Prom the order denying that motion, defendant appealed.
    Affirmed.
    
      Paul N. Casserly and V. R. Gensler, for appellant.
    
      Jay W. Smith and T. M. Thomson, for respondents.
    
      
       Reported in 201 N. W. 918.
    
   PER CURIAM.

Action for damages on account of defendant’s misrepresentation of a fur coat sold by him to plaintiffs on the instalment plan. Verdict for plaintiffs for $150, reduced by the trial court to $100. Defendant appeals from the order denying a new trial.

Defendant labors under the mistaken notion that this was an action for rescission. Part payments had been made when plaintiffs learned' of some of the misrepresentations. The falsity of the principal misrepresentation, that the fur was not muskrat, was not discovered until just before suit was brought, according to plaintiff’s testimony. Where one has performed a contract in whole or in part before discovering the falsity of the representations inducing him to enter it, he may affirm the contract and bring his action for damages for the deceit. Humphrey v. Sievers, 137 Minn. 373, 163 N. W. 737. It is claimed judgment should have been ordered for defendant, because the proof showed the coat to be worth as much as plaintiffs paid for it. There was testimony by plaintiffs that the garment was of very insignificant value, and also of one who understood furs that some of the skins used were practically worthless and unfit. It is quite plain the jury could find not only that there had been misrepresentations as to kind of fur and wearing quality of the coat, but that plaintiffs had been damaged thereby.

The order is affirmed.  