Ormund v. Hobart
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover damages for the alleged unlawful conversion by defendants of certain cattle. The answer denied the conversion, and alleged that the plaintiff gave the defendants a bill of sale of the cattle as security for a loan, and afterwards delivered the cattle to them in payment.
Read the full summary
Plaintiff brought this action in the district court for Hennepin county, to recover damages for the alleged unlawful conversion by defendants of certain cattle. The answer denied the conversion, and alleged that the plaintiff gave the defendants a bill of sale of the cattle as security for a loan, and afterwards delivered the cattle to them in payment. The reply denied the delivery of the cattle to the defendants, but admitted that the defendants had loaned the plaintiff $100, to secure the repayment of which the plaintiff had given the defendants a note, and alleged that the loan and the…
1Opinion of the CourtBerry, J.
The contract between plaintiff and defendants was evidenced by the note and bill of sale. The contract was usurious, as well as the note by which it was evidenced, and both were therefore void by statute, as -well as the bill of sale, which was only security for them. Laws 1879, c. 66, § 3. The statute, therefore, leaves no ground upon which to claim that there was a valid indebtedness for the money actually loaned, notwithstanding the usurious character of the note and of the whole transaction between the parties. The cases which hold that a pre-existing valid debt is not lost, although the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Kellogg v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
3Cited by5 opinions
- Midland Loan Finance Co. v. LorentzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- Guthrie v. OlsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- Davenport v. LaddSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1888
- Hobart v. MichaudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928
- Hobart v. MichaudSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1928