Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Anfinson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Anfinson

17 N.W. 274, 31 Minn. 182, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 43

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedOctober 22, 1883

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 N.W. 274 (Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Anfinson) 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

Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Anfinson, 17 N.W. 274, 31 Minn. 182, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 43 (Mich. 1883).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.W. 274, 31 Minn. 182, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 43, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-manufacturing-co-v-anfinson-minn-1883.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack