Saxe v. Womack
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendants from an order of the district court for Eamsey county, Otis, J., denying a motion for a new trial.
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
Action upon a promissory note secured by a mortgage. Defense, usury. The court below, trying the case without a jury, found against defendants, and from an order denying'a new trial they appeal.
Stated as briefly as possible, the controlling facts are these: Plaintiff, a nonresident, had made a few loans in the city of St. Paul, taking real-estate security. One Griggs collected interest and principal for him as it became due, remitting as collected. Through •the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure the payment of one >of these loans, plaintiff, in 1893, became the owner of five unimproved…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bank of the United States v. Waggener and OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Thurston v. . CornellNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Stein v. SwensenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Lewis v. WilloughbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Yellow Medicine County Bank v. CookSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- C. C. Slaughter Co. v. EllerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1917
- Banning v. HallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
- Bridgeport L. A. W. Corporation v. LevySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Barry v. ParantoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.