Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Anfinson
17 N.W. 274, 31 Minn. 182, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 43
Opinion
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
Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Anfinson, 17 N.W. 274, 31 Minn. 182, 1883 Minn. LEXIS 43 (Mich. 1883).
17 N.W. 274 (Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Anfinson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
First National Bank of Herman v. Cargill Elevator Co.
192 N.W. 111 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1923)