Cowles v. Canfield
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant Thomas H. Canfield from an order of the District Court of Otter Tail county, Baxter, J., made July 31, 1891, denying his application for a new trial. The plaintiff, Orrin M. Cowles, was on November 2, 1885, owing'defendant Canfield $700 and interest from April 1, 1885, at the rate of ten per cent, a year, amounting to $741.03. The debt was not due. One half of it would fall due April 1, 1886, and the other half one year thereafter.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant Thomas H. Canfield from an order of the District Court of Otter Tail county, Baxter, J., made July 31, 1891, denying his application for a new trial. The plaintiff, Orrin M. Cowles, was on November 2, 1885, owing'defendant Canfield $700 and interest from April 1, 1885, at the rate of ten per cent, a year, amounting to $741.03. The debt was not due. One half of it would fall due April 1, 1886, and the other half one year thereafter. This debt was secured by a mortgage upon eighty acres of land, and by a chattel mortgage upon a horse which he had bought of Canfield. On…
1Opinion of the CourtG-ilfillan, C. J.
The only question in the case is upon the suffi- ■ ciency of the evidence to justify the finding of the jury that the. $8.97 was included in the renewal note, for the purpose of securing a rate of interest greater than 10 per cent, per annum. The evidence was not very strong; but, as between the inconsistent accounts by plaintiff and defendant, the jury was at liberty to believe either, and it seems to have accepted that of the plaintiff instead of that of the defendant. And from the account given by plaintiff, it is not easy to assign a reason for including the above sum in the renewal note,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Rantala v. HaishSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Doty v. Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
- I. J. Bartlett Co. v. NessSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
- Skoog v. MinkoffOregon Supreme Court · 1971