Strickland v. First State Bank of Balaton
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Wilson, O. J.
Action for money had and received. Defense was: (1) That defendant did not receive money from plaintiff; and (2) that if. so the transaction was usurious. The jury found for plaintiff. A new trial was granted, and on the second trial the jury again found for plaintiff who now appeals from the judgment entered pursuant to the order of the court granting defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Defendant did not ask for a new trial. Upon such record our attention must be directed to the inquiry as to whether or not there was any competent evidence in the case…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Central Building & Loan Ass'n v. LampsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Patterson v. WymanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1919
- Rantala v. HaishSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1916
- Daniels v. WilsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Chase v. New York Mortgage Loan Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1892
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Fred G. Clark Co. v. E. C. Warner Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1933
- Trapp v. HancuhCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1995
- Linne v. RonkainenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1949
- First National Bank v. FoxSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
- Kingsley v. AldenSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1935
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.