Rugland v. Tollefsen

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Rugland v. Tollefsen

55 N.W. 123, 53 Minn. 267, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 318

Supreme Court of Minnesota·Decided May 11, 1893·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Gilfillan, C. J.

Upon tbe question whether, when she purchased the note in suit, the plaintiff had notice of its usurious character, the evidence, though scant, was probably enough to justify leaving it to the jury. But there was no evidence whatever that Eugland acted as her agent in making the purchase, and therefore the charge that if the jury believed that he was her agent to make, and as such made, the purchase, his knowledge as to the character of the note would be notice of it to her, and she could not recover, was erroneous, because it might mislead the jury into supposing they could, from the evidence, find such agency.

Order reversed.

Vanderburgh, J., absent.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 123.)

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

Gilfillan, C. J.

Upon tbe question whether, when she purchased the note in suit, the plaintiff had notice of its usurious character, the evidence, though scant, was probably enough to justify leaving it to the jury. But there was no evidence whatever that Eugland acted as her agent in making the purchase, and therefore the charge that if the jury believed that he was her agent to make, and as such made, the purchase, his knowledge as to the character of the note would be notice of it to her, and she could not recover, was erroneous, because it might mislead the jury into supposing they could, from the evidence, find such agency.

Order reversed.

Vanderburgh, J., absent.

(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 123.)

Rugland v. Tollefsen, 55 N.W. 123, 53 Minn. 267, 1893 Minn. LEXIS 318 (Mich. 1893).

Pincite

55 N.W. 123 (Rugland v. Tollefsen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related