Rugland v. Thompson
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, Stephen 0. England, from an order of the district court of Grant county, C. L. Brown, J., made August 7, 1891, refusing his application for a new trial.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, Stephen 0. England, from an order of the district court of Grant county, C. L. Brown, J., made August 7, 1891, refusing his application for a new trial. The defendants, Carrie Thompson and Thore Thompson, her husband, were on January 26,1887, indebted to plaintiff somewhat over $300, and on that day they bought of him a horse, for which they agreed to pay him the further sum of $125. As evidence of these debts, they on that day gave plaintiff their note for $448.75, due November 1, 1887, bearing interest at the rate of 10 per cent, a year, and secured it by two mortgages,…
1Opinion of the CourtDickinson, J.
The defendants, being indebted to the plaintiff, executed to him their promissory note for the payment of a specified sum of money on or before a designated date, and secured the same by two chattel mortgages. In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover the mortgaged property on the ground of default in respect to payment. The defenses of payment and usury were interposed. The jury returned a general verdict for the defendants. Unless there was prejudicial error in the rulings of the court, the verdict should be allowed to end the controversy, for, as we consider, the evidence was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Massachusetts Loan & Trust Co. v. WelchSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stroud v. PayneNebraska Supreme Court · 1933
- E. A. Fountain v. Oreck's Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1955
- Weyerhaeuser Co. v. HvidstenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1964
- Northern Trust Co. v. HiltgenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895