Kanevsky v. Taran

Wilson, C. J.

Plaintiffs appealed from an adverse judgment entered after the trial before the court without a jury!

The action was to cancel on the ground of usury a $2,000 note and a second mortgage securing the same, after a foreclosure of the mortgage. The loan to plaintiffs was negotiated by defendant Sam Taran. It ran to his mother, defendant Gussie Taran, who assigned the mortgage foreclosure certificate to defendant R & R Finance Company. The loan was for six months. Plaintiffs claimed an illegal exaction of $150 in excess of legal interest and that they received but $1,850. This was denied, and there is evidence tending to show that plaintiffs received the full $2,000. An *94 additional loan of $210.50, secured by two diamonds, is involved.

The record presents a question of fact, and there is evidence to sustain- the finding of the trial court that there was no agreement for a usurious loan and that neither of the defendants Taran exacted an illegal rate of interest.

Under the findings of fact, which are sustained by the evidence, the defendant E & E Finance Company was a bona fide purchaser of the certificate under a mortgage foreclosure sale and was therefore immune from attack on the ground of usury. Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , 18 N. W. 450 ; Holmes v. State Bank, 53 Minn. 350 , 55 N. W. 555 .

Affirmed.