Grieser v. Hall

• Decision Date: 05 January 1894
• Citation: 57 N.W. 462,56 Minn. 155
• Parties: GRIESER ET AL. v. HALL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

56 Minn. 155

57 N.W. 462

GRIESER ET AL.

v.HALL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 5, 1894.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

The findings held to be justified by the evidence.

Appeal from district court, St. Louis county; Baxter, Judge.

Action by Louis H. Grieser and Emil Hartmann against Martin O. Hall for the cancellation of a certain promissory note on the ground that the same is usurious and void, and for other relief. There was judgment for defendant, and a new trial denied. Plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

On March 3, 1892, plaintiff Grieser made his promissory note for $1,300, due in 90 days from date, bearing interest at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, to one Alice King. This note was, before delivery, indorsed by plaintiff Hartmann, and after maturity it was sold and indorsed by Alice King to defendant. After the note became due the note in suit was given as a renewal, and was made by Grieser, and indorsed by Hartmann, the same as the original. In the transactions resulting in the execution of the original note one Wallace Warner acted as agent. Plaintiff Grieser insists that Warner was agent for Mrs. King, and the latter claims that he was acting in behalf of Grieser. Plaintiffs allege that for their original note for $1,300 they received but $1,287, and for that reason it was usurious and void, and therefore the renewal note is also void.

Wilson & Taylor and Geo. L. Spangler, for appellants.

Cotton & Dibell, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

The issue in this case was purely one of fact, and the only question presented by this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding of the court that the original promissory note, (of which the note in suit was a renewal,) executed by plaintiffs to Mrs. King, was not usurious. We think the court may well have found that Mrs. King supposed that Warner was plaintiffs' agent to secure the loan, and not her agent in making it, and that as such he was entitled from them to a commission, of which he voluntarily gave her the benefit. This version of the transaction, which was justified by Mrs. King's testimony, was entirely consistent with the conclusion that there was no intention on her part to take or contract for more than the legal rate of interest for the use of the money loaned, which is always an essential constituent of usury. The existence of this corrupt intent is always a question of fact to be collected from the whole of the transaction as it passed between the parties....