Dickey v. Brown
This text of 9 N.W. 347 (Dickey v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendants claim at least one of the plaintiffs had knowledge Holland, Dickerson & Co. received the two hundred dollars aforesaid at the time the loan was made, and, therefore, that the'plaintiffs through their said agents exacted and received more than ten per cent interest.' We are constrained to say this proposition is not well taken.
[427]*427John Eurguson had the right to do as he pleased with the three hundred dollars Brown agreed to pay him. He could, if he saw proper, divide with Holland, Eurguson & Co., and if he could not negotiate the loan otherwise, it possibly was his duty to Brown to do so. John Eurguson was the agent of the defendant, Brown, and any contract made between them alone could not have the effect of tainting such contract with usury so far as the plaintiffs are -concerned. Smith v. Wolf. 55 Iowa, 555.
. Aeeibmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
9 N.W. 347, 56 Iowa 426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickey-v-brown-iowa-1881.