46 N.W. 360 (Minn. 1890), Stein v. Swensen

Citation:46 N.W. 360, 44 Minn. 218
Opinion Judge:Dickinson, J.
Party Name:Lewis Stein v. Peter P. Swensen, Sheriff, and another
Attorney:Simon Meyers and Hart & Brewer, for appellant. Selden Bacon, for respondents.
Case Date:August 06, 1890
Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Page 360

46 N.W. 360 (Minn. 1890)

44 Minn. 218

Lewis Stein


Peter P. Swensen, Sheriff, and another

Supreme Court of Minnesota

August 6, 1890

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Hicks, J., presiding, refusing a new trial.

Order reversed.

Simon Meyers and Hart & Brewer, for appellant.

Selden Bacon, for respondents.


[44 Minn. 219] Dickinson, J.

This action is for the conversion of personal property. The plaintiff's rights in respect to the property are those of a mortgagee, the owners of the property, a partnership bearing the name of H. C. Vaughn & Co., having mortgaged the same to the plaintiff in June, 1888, by two separate mortgages given to

Page 361

secure the promissory notes of the mortgagors to the mortgagee for $ 500 and $ 300, respectively, payable 30 days after date, with interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum. The defendant Swensen, as sheriff of Hennepin county, took the property in September, 1888, as the property of H. C. Vaughn & Co., under a writ of attachment issued to him in an action by other parties against H. C. Vaughn & Co. Three days after that attachment the members of the partnership of H. C. Vaughn & Co. made a general assignment of all their property to the defendant Knowlton, for the benefit of their creditors, pursuant to the insolvent law of 1881. Knowlton qualified as such assignee, and thereafter duly signified his election as such assignee to retain the attachment, and pursuant to the statute he was substituted for the plaintiff, as a party in the action in which the attachment had been made. The defence relied upon is that the mortgages were void for usury.

The case before us may be thus stated: The plaintiff resides in the city of New York. Vaughn & Co. did not negotiate or deal with him personally in respect to these matters, but only with a brother of the [44 Minn. 220] plaintiff, one Henry Stein, in the city of Minneapolis. Vaughn & Co. agreed to pay Henry Stein 3 per cent. of the moneys borrowed, for his services in connection with the loans, and did make such payments at the time of the making of the loans. According to the first, third, and fourth special findings of the jury, Henry Stein was the general agent of the plaintiff in matters of this kind. The 3 per cent. thus charged by him, and paid by Vaughn & Co., was but a reasonable compensation for his services in connection with the making of the original loans, and the plaintiff did...

To continue reading