Case ID: minn_33/html/0194-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gilfillan, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Horace B. Strait and others vs. Nelson F. Frary.
    February 6, 1885.
    
      Usury. — Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211, and Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, followed on the question of usury.
    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.
    
      M. E. Mathews, for appellant.
    
      A. C. Forbes, for respondent.
   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 from Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211, and Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495. Those decisions are followed in this case.

Judgment affirmed.