Rugland v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 11 December 1893
• Citation: Rugland v. Thompson, 55 Minn. 466, 57 N.W. 205 (Minn. 1893)
• Parties: RUGLAND v. THOMPSON ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

55 Minn. 466

57 N.W. 205

RUGLAND

v.THOMPSON ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Dec. 11, 1893.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Held, upon the evidence in this case, that the court below erred when refusing to grant plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Appeal from district court, Grant county; Brown, Judge.

Action by Stephen C. Rugland against Thore Thompson and others to enforce a claim on realty, in the nature of an equitable mortgage. There was a verdict for defendants, and a new trial denied. Plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Charles C. Houpt, for appellant.

Reynolds & Townsend, for respondents.

COLLINS, J.

One of the defendants, Thore Thompson, had purchased, upon time, two 40-acre tracts of school land, and there had been issued to him, by the state land commissioner, certificates therefor. These had been assigned to one Fuglie as security for money borrowed by Thompson. The latter then applied to plaintiff for a loan of money sufficient to pay Fuglie, and to pay interest on the certificates and back taxes, offering the security held by Fuglie. Thompson estimated the amount needed for these purposes at $150, but requested plaintiff to ascertain from the county treasurer the exact sum due as interest and as back taxes. March 14, 1888, plaintiff notified Thompson that the total sum necessary was $168.80 and took his note for that amount. A Thompson's request, he paid Fuglie $126.80, and, as agreed upon, received an assignment of the certificates as security for the payment of the note. Taxes due in 1886 and 1887, and one year's interest,-in all, $21.62,-were paid March 14th by plaintiff to the county treasurer, and on May 24th he paid taxes due in 1888, and one year's interest, amounting to $24.01,-in all, the sum of $45.63,-which, added to the amount paid Fuglie, made a total of $172.43, or $3.63 more than the amount of the note. Evidently, there was an error in computing, but it was in Thompson's favor.

This action was brought to foreclose plaintiff's claim, really a mortgage, upon the land covered by the certificates. The defense was usury, it being claimed that the note was usurious to the extent of the difference between the amounts paid out on March 14th for taxes, interest, and to Fuglie, $148.42, and the amount of the note $168.80. This defense was sustained by the verdict of the jury, but we are of the opinion that the verdict ought not to be upheld. According to the charge, the result was made to depend upon the taxes of 1887, which...