Lukens v. Hazlett
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Wadena county, Stearns, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict for plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal by defendant from an order of the district court for Wadena county, Stearns, J., presiding, refusing a new trial, after a verdict for plaintiff. Upon the trial the note for $687, referred to in the opinion, was offered in evidence, and on the lower left-hand comer thereof was the number “1740.” Evidence was introduced showing that the defendant, who was proprietor of a bank, kept a list of bills receivable, in which the notes belonging to the defendant were regularly numbered, and in which list was given, for each note, the name of the maker, payee, amount, date, etc.; that the numbers…
1Opinion of the CourtMitchell, J.
This was an action to recover the value of personal property, taken under a chattel mortgage executed to secure an alleged usurious note.
The note for $585, executed by plaintiff to defendant, was confessedly usurious. If the $637 note secured by this mortgage had been given directly to defendant in substitution for the first one, it would have been also usurious; for where a new contract is substituted for a usurious one the taint of usury will affect the new security. Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, (18 N. W. Rep. 450;) Tyler on Usury, 395.
*443The evidence tended to show that when the first…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jordan v. HumphreySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- First National Bank of Milwaukee v. PlankintonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
3Cited by29 opinions
- Garvin v. LintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Seebold v. EustermannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Jones v. PhillippeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Blue v. First Nat. BankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1917
- Wilson v. WhitworthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.