Rugland v. Thompson

• Decision Date: 08 March 1892
• Citation: 48 Minn. 539
• Parties: STEPHEN C. RUGLAND <I>vs.</I> CARRIE THOMPSON <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

48 Minn. 539

STEPHEN C. RUGLAND vs. CARRIE THOMPSON et al.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Argued December 24, 1891.

Decided March 8, 1892.

Appeal by plaintiff, Stephen C. Rugland, from an order of the district court of Grant county, C. L. Brown, J., made August 7, 1891, refusing his application for a new trial.

The defendants, Carrie Thompson and Thore Thompson, her husband, were on January 26, 1887, indebted to plaintiff somewhat over $300, and on that day they bought of him a horse, for which they agreed to pay him the further sum of $125. As evidence of these debts, they on that day gave plaintiff their note for $448.75, due November 1, 1887, bearing interest at the rate of 10 per cent. a year, and secured it by two mortgages, one upon two horses and a selfbinder, and all the crops to be raised that year and the next year on their farm of eighty acres; the other upon a mare, three colts, three cows, four heifers, and other stock, and upon farm machinery. Both mortgages were duly filed. On January 19, 1889, plaintiff made and filed an affidavit of renewal, stating that the whole sum secured remained unpaid, and a lien on the property mortgaged.

In June, 1889, plaintiff commenced this action to recover the possession of the mortgaged chattels, basing his right to them on these mortgages, and claiming that no part of the debt had been paid, and that defendants wrongfully detained the property, and that its value was $350. The defendants answered that, when they bought the horse, plaintiff warranted him sound and healthy, and agreed, if he was not, plaintiff would indorse the purchase price and interest upon the note; that the horse was in fact unsound and worthless, and died soon after, to their damage $125. They alleged that at divers times they sold and delivered to plaintiff grain and other property, and performed work for him, under an arrangement that he was to apply the price upon the note; that he agreed to do it, and thereby the balance of the debt was fully paid and the mortgages satisfied. The defendants further claimed that, when the note and mortgages were executed, plaintiff included in them $11.01 commission or bonus for forbearance, besides the interest mentioned in the note, and that for that reason the note and two mortgages were all void for usury.

The issues were tried June 2, 1890, at Elbow Lake, and defendants were allowed, on the trial, to testify, after objection by plaintiff, that when they gave the note they said to plaintiff that all they should thereafter pay to him must go upon this note, until it was paid. After giving the note they continued to buy goods of plaintiff, and were owing for them when they delivered to him this grain and produce. Plaintiff claimed to apply the price of the grain and produce upon this book account. The jury rendered a verdict for defendants. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, and, being denied, he appealed.

Oscar M. Torrison and C. J. Gunderson, for appellant.

George Ketcham and J. W. Reynolds, for respondents.

DICKINSON, J.

The defendants, being indebted to the plaintiff, executed to him their promissory note for the payment of a specified sum of money on or before a designated date, and secured the same by two chattel mortgages. In this action the plaintiff seeks to recover the mortgaged property on the ground of default in respect to payment. The defenses of payment and usury were interposed. The...