Kanevsky v. Taran

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Kanevsky v. Taran

240 N.W. 103, 185 Minn. 93, 1931 Minn. LEXIS 852

CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota

DecidedDecember 24, 1931

DocketNo. 28,695.

StatusPublished

This text of 240 N.W. 103 (Kanevsky v. Taran) 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

Kanevsky v. Taran, 240 N.W. 103, 185 Minn. 93, 1931 Minn. LEXIS 852 (Mich. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Wilson, C. J.

Plaintiffs appealed from an adverse judgment entered after the trial before the court without a jury!

The action was to cancel on the ground of usury a $2,000 note and a second mortgage securing the same, after a foreclosure of the mortgage. The loan to plaintiffs was negotiated by defendant Sam Taran. It ran to his mother, defendant Gussie Taran, who assigned the mortgage foreclosure certificate to defendant R & R Finance Company. The loan was for six months. Plaintiffs claimed an illegal exaction of $150 in excess of legal interest and that they received but $1,850. This was denied, and there is evidence tending to show that plaintiffs received the full $2,000. An *94 additional loan of $210.50, secured by two diamonds, is involved.

The record presents a question of fact, and there is evidence to sustain- the finding of the trial court that there was no agreement for a usurious loan and that neither of the defendants Taran exacted an illegal rate of interest.

Under the findings of fact, which are sustained by the evidence, the defendant E & E Finance Company was a bona fide purchaser of the certificate under a mortgage foreclosure sale and was therefore immune from attack on the ground of usury. Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, 18 N. W. 450; Holmes v. State Bank, 53 Minn. 350, 55 N. W. 555.

Affirmed.

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

Wilson, C. J.

Plaintiffs appealed from an adverse judgment entered after the trial before the court without a jury!

The action was to cancel on the ground of usury a $2,000 note and a second mortgage securing the same, after a foreclosure of the mortgage. The loan to plaintiffs was negotiated by defendant Sam Taran. It ran to his mother, defendant Gussie Taran, who assigned the mortgage foreclosure certificate to defendant R & R Finance Company. The loan was for six months. Plaintiffs claimed an illegal exaction of $150 in excess of legal interest and that they received but $1,850. This was denied, and there is evidence tending to show that plaintiffs received the full $2,000. An *94 additional loan of $210.50, secured by two diamonds, is involved.

The record presents a question of fact, and there is evidence to sustain- the finding of the trial court that there was no agreement for a usurious loan and that neither of the defendants Taran exacted an illegal rate of interest.

Under the findings of fact, which are sustained by the evidence, the defendant E & E Finance Company was a bona fide purchaser of the certificate under a mortgage foreclosure sale and was therefore immune from attack on the ground of usury. Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, 18 N. W. 450; Holmes v. State Bank, 53 Minn. 350, 55 N. W. 555.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 N.W. 103, 185 Minn. 93, 1931 Minn. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanevsky-v-taran-minn-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack