Hutchinson v. Herrick
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Appeal by plaintiff, Lizzie L. Hutchinson, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Robert D. Russell, J., made January 20,1894, sustaining defendant’s demurrer to her amended complaint.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff, Lizzie L. Hutchinson, from an order of the District Court of Hennepin County, Robert D. Russell, J., made January 20,1894, sustaining defendant’s demurrer to her amended complaint. January 21, 1891, plaintiff gave defendant, Edwin W. Herrick, her note for $6,500 secured by mortgage due five years thereafter bearing interest at the rate of seven per cent per annum payable semiannually, but she received only $6,012.50. The defendant retained as bonus $487.50. On the day following defendant sold and assigned the note and mortgage to Frederick Fox of Portland, Me. who had no…
1Opinion of the CourtCollins, J.
The real character and scope of this transaction very clearly appear in the complaint, although it is more than once alleged *475therein that the sum agreed to be paid by plaintiff for the first year for the use of the amount of money loaned to her by defendant was usurious, illegal, unlawful, and corrupt, and that, therefore, the notes which she gave were of the same nature. The allegations, disclosing exactly what the transaction was, bring the case directly within the rules for determining whether a usurious contract was made, stated in Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520, (57 N. W. 311,) anct it…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Smith v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1893
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lewis v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.California Supreme Court · 1934
- Temple v. DavisSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1911
- Baker v. Lynchburg National BankSupreme Court of Virginia · 1917
- Church v. St. Paul Title Insurance & Trust Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1894