Court Opinion

ID: 9700664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:40:46.125296+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:13.071819
License: Public Domain

Thomas Gallagher, Justice
(dissenting).
I am of the opinion that this case is governed by Stevens v. Staples, 64 Minn. 3, 65 N. W. 959. There is no contradiction that the money *203paid .out by plaintiff was required to procure the loan for her brother. It would be most illogical to assume that she would loan $2,000 to her brother, after paying $450 to obtain this sum, without expecting reimbursement for such expense. Her efforts in this respect should not be held to be an attempt to exact usurious interest from her brother.
Dell, Chief Justice (dissenting).
I concur in the dissent of Mr. Justice Thomas Gallagher.