TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Strait v. Frary

Horace B. Strait and others v. Nelson F. Frary

Strait v. Frary, 22 N.W. 295 (Minn. 1885)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Minnesota · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 6, 1885
Judges
Gilfillan
Citations
22 N.W. 29533 Minn. 1941885 Minn. LEXIS 40
Headnotes
Usury. — Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211, and Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, followed on the question of usury.
Summary
Action upon a mortgage note, brought in the district court for Lyon county. The answer sets up usury as a defence. The action was tried without a jury before Webber, J., who found the following facts: The plaintiffs, bankers, had an agreement with Lewis & Kelley, of Minneapolis, by which the plaintiffs were to secure applications for loans, Lewis & Kelley were to procure the money, and . the plaintiffs and Lewis & Kelley were then to divide the commissions on the loans. Defendant applied to plaintiffs to obtain for him a loan . of $600, agreeing to pay interest at the rate of nine per cent, per an-num. The plaintiffs applied to Lewis & Kelley who had in their hands, to loan, funds belonging to Fannie A. Baker, and who from these . funds made the loan to defendant, taking the note in suit. The plaintiffs charged the defendant $60 commission, which was divided between plaintiffs and Lewis & Kelley, and which was deducted from the amount paid to the defendant. Subsequently Fannie A. Baker sold and transferred the note to the plaintiffs. Upon these facts, judg-ement was directed for plaintiff, from which the defendant appeals.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Gilfillan

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Gilfillan, C. J.

As the facts are found by the court below, the case, so far as concerns the question of usury, is not distinguishable *195 from Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211 , and Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 . Those decisions are followed in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1889: 11890: 118892026peak 1889 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Lewis v. Willoughby45 N.W. 439 (Minn. 1890)
  2. Hass v. Camp42 N.W. 20 (Minn. 1889)

Most recent

  1. Lewis v. Willoughby45 N.W. 439 (Minn. 1890)
  2. Hass v. Camp42 N.W. 20 (Minn. 1889)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Jordan v. Humphrey, 18 N.W. 450 (Minn. 1884) 20
Acheson v. Chase, 9 N.W. 734 (Minn. 1881) 19

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list