Charmoll Fashions, Inc. v. Otto
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Kelly, Justice.
Appellant, Charmoll Fashions, Inc., commenced an action to recover on a promissory note against Lorraine Otto, Delos O. Otto, Edward Knelman, and Varsi-Jac, Inc. The case was tried on stipulated facts and the trial court concluded that the indi vidual defendants were comakers, and not guarantors, of the note. Therefore, because the note called for 10-percent interest, it was held usurious and hence unenforceable as to these defendants. Appellant appeals from the entry of judgment and from denial of its motion for a new trial. We reverse.
Appellant and defendant Lorraine Otto…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Dahmes v. Industrial Credit Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- Schmidt v. McKenzieSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1943
- Clark v. Otto B. Ashbach & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1954
- Booth v. SpindlerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1961
- All Purpose Finance Corp. v. D'AndreaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Mansiones de Park Gardens, Inc. v. Scotiabank de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1983
- Doggett v. Heritage Concepts, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1980
- Trapp v. HancuhCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Hopfenspirger v. WestDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2006
- Wolpert v. FosterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.