Court Opinion

ID: 7964336
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 00:49:13.532184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:34:34.339896
License: Public Domain

By the Court.

This case is ruled by Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30 Minn. 308, in which we held a stipulation (contained in a machine note) for the payment of an attorney’s fee in case of suit, valid. By consequence it would not be usurious. In White v. Iltis, 24 Minn. 43, the court was of opinion that the interest clause was so peculiarly worded as to include the attorney’s fee mentioned, not simply as an attorney’s fee, but as interest.
Order reversed, and new trial ordered.