Legal Opinion

Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp.

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Decided December 29, 1939No. 32,223PublishedCited by 33 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Peterson, Justice.

This action is brought to secure the possession of an automobile, and to cancel as usurious the conditional sales contract under which plaintiff purchased the car, which has been assigned to defendant. The pleadings show that on December 24, 1938, plaintiff purchased the car under conditional sales contract from Alvin Motors, Inc., herein referred to as the dealer. The contract was assigned to defendant, an automobile finance company, which seized the car on January 23, 1939, because of plaintiff’s default, and retains possession of it under the provisions of the contract.

On…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Commercial Credit Co. v. TarwaterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
  2. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. SwainLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1937
  3. Banning v. HallSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1897
  4. Trauernicht v. KingstonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1923
  5. Saxe v. WomackSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1896

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Rathbun v. WT Grant CompanySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1974
  2. Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
  3. Hafer v. SpaethWashington Supreme Court · 1945
  4. Fogie v. Thorn Americas, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1996
  5. Wesley v. Schaller Subaru, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2006

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API