Legal Opinion

Pomplun v. Hudson

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided April 26, 1929No. 27,270PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHolt, J.

Defendants appeal from a judgment declaring a loan usurious, canceling the assignment of a note and mortgage securing the loan, and enjoining defendants from foreclosing the mortgage.

Plaintiff was the owner of a 160-acre farm in Stevens county, which by deed dated February 25, 1921, he conveyed to Edward Dutcher, who in consideration thereof executed three notes, aggregating $21,800, payable to the order of plaintiff and secured by three mortgages on the farm. Only the note for $12,000 secured by a first mortgage is here involved, the other two mortgages being subordinate thereto. This note…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Lukens v. HazlettSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
  2. Central Building & Loan Ass'n v. LampsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
  3. Trauernicht v. KingstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  4. Rantala v. HaishSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
  5. Saxe v. WomackSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Midland Loan Finance Co. v. LorentzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
  2. E. C. Warner Co. v. W. B. Foshay Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
  3. Drew v. Skeena Lumber Co. Ltd.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1930

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API