Melbo v. Rinn
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Otis, Justice.
Two actions on promissory notes against separate defendants have been consolidated. The notes were executed in connection with sales which defendants allege were fraudulently induced. The court found that plaintiff took the notes with notice they were usurious and that he was not a holder in due course. It directed verdicts in favor of defendants. Plaintiff appeals from the judgments and from orders denying his motions for a new trial.
At the time of these transactions, plaintiff was engaged in the business of selling and installing water softeners under the trade name “Lindsay…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Van Asperen v. Darling Olds, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1958
- Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- Seebold v. EustermannSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1944
- Midland Loan Finance Co. v. LorentzSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1941
- International Finance Corporation v. RiegerSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1965
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rehberger v. Project Plumbing Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1973
- Rhee v. Golden Home Builders, Inc.Court of Appeals of Minnesota · 2000
- Bowman v. Brooklyn Pet HospitalSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1976
- Carebourn Capital, L.P. v. Darkpulse, Inc.District Court, D. Minnesota · 2021