Grieser v. Hall

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Grieser v. Hall

57 N.W. 462, 56 Minn. 155, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 16

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedJanuary 5, 1894

DocketNo. 8485

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 N.W. 462 (Grieser v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grieser v. Hall, 57 N.W. 462, 56 Minn. 155, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 16 (Mich. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

The issue in this case was purely one of fact, and the only question presented by this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding of the court that the original promissory note, (of which the note in suit was a renewal,) executed by plaintiffs to Mrs. King, was not usurious.

We think the court may well have found that Mrs. King supposed that Warner was plaintiffs’ agent to secure the loan, and not her agent in making it, and that as such he was entitled from them to a- commission, of which he voluntarily gave her the benefit. This ■version of the transaction, which was justified by Mrs. King’s testimony, was entirely consistent with the conclusion that there was no intention on her part to take or contract for more than the legal rate of interest for the use of the money loaned, which is always an essential constituent of usury. The existence of this corrupt intent is always a question of fact to be collected from the whole of the transaction as it passed between the parties.

Moreover, the attitude which both plaintiff G-rieser and his principal witness, Warner, occupied with reference to the matter was not calculated to commend their testimony to the special favor of the court.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 57 bf. W. Rep. 462.)

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mitchell, J.

The issue in this case was purely one of fact, and the only question presented by this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding of the court that the original promissory note, (of which the note in suit was a renewal,) executed by plaintiffs to Mrs. King, was not usurious.

We think the court may well have found that Mrs. King supposed that Warner was plaintiffs’ agent to secure the loan, and not her agent in making it, and that as such he was entitled from them to a- commission, of which he voluntarily gave her the benefit. This ■version of the transaction, which was justified by Mrs. King’s testimony, was entirely consistent with the conclusion that there was no intention on her part to take or contract for more than the legal rate of interest for the use of the money loaned, which is always an essential constituent of usury. The existence of this corrupt intent is always a question of fact to be collected from the whole of the transaction as it passed between the parties.

Moreover, the attitude which both plaintiff G-rieser and his principal witness, Warner, occupied with reference to the matter was not calculated to commend their testimony to the special favor of the court.

Order affirmed.

(Opinion published 57 bf. W. Rep. 462.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 N.W. 462, 56 Minn. 155, 1894 Minn. LEXIS 16, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grieser-v-hall-minn-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack