Legal Opinion
A. Y. McDonald Mfg. Co. v. Read
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided May 2, 1941No. 32,690PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Stone, Justice.
The decision below is that the record of an instrument in the nature of a conditional sale contract, because of its usurious pro vision for interest and insufficient description of subject matter, was of no avail as constructive notice to subsequent purchasers in good faith and for value.
The subject matter of the instrument was a “Mueller Oil Furnace,” sold in February, 1937, by plaintiff to the L. D. Eastman Furnace Company. The document is on a printed form and begins in terms of a promissory note of the Eastman company promising to pay plaintiff $210 (purchase price of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Barrett v. MagnerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Tolbert v. HortonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
- Adamson v. HortonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Nielson v. LarsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Walker v. FitzgeraldSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kenneally v. Standard Electronics Corp.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966
- Miller v. McCray Refrigerator Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1942
- Kenneally v. Standard Electronics CorporationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1966