Larson v. Lombard Inv. Co.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1892
• Citation: 53 N.W. 179,51 Minn. 141
• Parties: LARSON v LOMBARD INVESTMENT CO. ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

51 Minn. 141

53 N.W. 179

LARSONvLOMBARD INVESTMENT CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Oct. 10, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Findings of fact held sustained by the evidence.

2. The defendant investment company was a corporation engaged in the business of loaning money upon mortgage, and had correspondents in different parts of the state, who received applications for loans, and forwarded them to the defendant for examination and approval. Held, that a clause in the printed form of application furnished by the defendant and signed by applicants for loans, purporting to constitute such correspondent the attorney of the applicant to procure the loan, did not necessarily preclude such applicant from showing that the correspondent was an agent of the company, and did in fact represent it also in the transaction.

3. Certain rulings of the court in the reception of testimony held error without prejudice.

Appeal from district court, Meeker county; POWERS, Judge.

Action by Else Larson against the Lombard Investment Company and others for the cancellation of a note and mortgage, or for the value thereof. Judgment for plaintiff. The Lombard Investment Company appeals. Affirmed.

George E. Budd, for appellant.

John T. Byrnes, (T. E. Byrnes, of counsel,) for respondent.

VANDERBURGH, J.

The defendant is engaged in the business of loaning money upon mortgage, and has established a branch of its business in St. Paul, in this state. To facilitate its operation, it secures the assistance of persons in different localities, whom its officers style “correspondents,” by whom applications for loans are received and forwarded for examination by the defendant, and, if the securities are found satisfactory and approved, they are accepted, and the money forwarded, to be delivered to the borrower. The office of the so-called “correspondent” is therefore to aid the defendant in procuring applications and consummating loans. Stevens & Co., bankers at Litchfield, in Meeker county, were so acting for defendant in the year 1890, when the plaintiff made an application for the loan in question in this case. The application was made in writing, in the form required, and upon blanks furnished by the defendant. It is obvious from the record that if the money had been forwarded to Stevens & Co., and in their hands, before all the conditions of the loan required by defendant had been complied with, it would have remained the property of defendant, and they would have held the same for the company in the mean time, and, to some extent certainly, have represented the company. It is true that the written application contains a provision constituting the person or manager to whom the application was submitted “the attorney of the applicant irrevocable for him and in his name to procure this loan from any person or corporation.” But this is not conclusive in the face of facts tending to show that the correspondent was at the same time representing the company. The court will look beyond the forms or devices resorted to by the defendant in conducting the business, into the real state of the case. The applicant (plaintiff here) also signed a certificate appointing Stevens & Co. her agent to negotiate a loan for $900 on the land in question, in which also she agreed to pay the sum of $99.54 in advance, in consideration of their services in negotiating the loan, as a part of the interest, and to execute a note drawing 6 per cent. interest for the principal sum named. The plaintiff accordingly executed a note and mortgage to secure $900, and interest at 6 per cent., running to the defendant, which has been duly recorded. The application for the loan was approved, and the note and mortgage...