Legal Opinion

Trauernicht v. Kingston

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided October 12, 1923No. 23,499PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDibell, J.

Action to cancel a note as usurious and to compel tbe surrender of security pledged as collateral. There were findings for tbe plaintiffs. Tbe defendant appeals from tbe order denying bis motion for a new trial.

When a transaction takes tbe form of a sale of property, in this case corporate stock, having a market price at which it may be sold on any business day, and tbe sale price is in excess of market value, for which sale price a note is given, tbe purpose being to cover usury, tbe apparent vendor being a lender in disguise and tbe buyer a borrower, tbe intent being that tbe vendor shall…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. KrumseigSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. Patterson v. WymanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
  3. Scott v. AustinSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887
  4. Barry v. ParantoSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1906
  5. Exley v. BerryhillSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1887

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Rathbun v. WT Grant CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  2. Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
  3. Seebold v. EustermannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
  4. Rose v. WheelerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1934
  5. E. C. Warner Co. v. W. B. Foshay Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932

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

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

Powered by the Exa API