33 Minn. 194
Decided February 6, 1885
Supreme Court of Minnesota · decided 1885-02-06
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.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1890
2 state decisions
Relies on Jordan v. Humphrey · Acheson v. Chase
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1885-02-06
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1As the facts are found by the court below, the case, so far as concerns the question of usury, is not distinguishable *195from Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211, and Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495. Those decisions are followed in this case.
¶2Judgment affirmed.