Blindman v. Industrial Loan & Thrift Corp.
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Dissent
The opinion of the majority appears to be a departure from our previous interpretation of our usury laws and our previous attitude toward the admissibility of evidence to show usury. As I view the effect of the decision, it makes it remarkably easy for a usurer to avoid the penalties provided by statute and to exploit the necessitous borrower. The reasons advanced to support the conclusion are, to me, not persuasive. As I view the matter, usury statutes are on the books to prevent oppression of necessitous borrowers whether or not the loans be made by contracts fair and legal on their face.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Scott v. LloydSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Stein v. SwensenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Curtiss v. TellerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
- Lewis v. WilloughbySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1890
- France v. MunroSupreme Court of Iowa · 1908
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Blindman v. Industrial Loan & Thrift Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1936