Stevens v. Staples
| Decision Date | 28 January 1896 |
| Parties | STEVENS v. STAPLES. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Held, the question of whether or not the agreement by the borrower to pay the lender a certain sum, to indemnify him for his loss in discounting securities to obtain the money lent, is a mere device to evade the usury laws, cannot be determined on the demurrer to the answer herein, but must be determined on the trial, where the intent and motives of the parties can be inquired into and ascertained.
Appeal from district court, Ramsey county; J. J. Egan, Judge.
Action by Minnie I. Stevens against Samuel C. Staples. From an order overruling a demurrer to the answer, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
B. H. Schriber, for appellant.
J. M. Hawthorne, for respondent.
This is an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer to the answer. The complaint alleges that, at the times therein mentioned, plaintiff was, and still is, the owner of a certain tract of land situated in Ramsey county; that on November 25, 1889, she made a warranty deed of the tract to defendant to secure the repayment of a loan of $3,300 then made by defendant to her for three years, and for which she agreed to pay interest at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, and $300 bonus, besides; that at the same time defendant made to her the written agreement set out in the complaint, by the terms of which he agreed to reconvey the land to her on being paid said sum of $3,300 on or before three years, with said bonus, and also said interest of 8 per cent. per annum, to be paid one-half semiannually, the balance when the principal is paid. The prayer is that the loan be declared usurious and void, and that defendant be adjudged to reconvey the land to plaintiff. The answer admits all of the foregoing facts, except that it denies that all of the $300 so agreed to be paid was in fact a bonus agreed to be paid for the use of the money borrowed. But it is alleged that plaintiff applied to defendant for a loan of $3,500 to redeem said land from the foreclosure of a prior mortgage; “that this defendant represented to said Edwin Stevens [plaintiff's husband and agent] that he had no money, and that if he made said loan of $3,500 he would have to borrow the whole of the same, or assign or take up some mortgages at a discount, so as to obtain said money, and that in doing so he would lose over $100; that said Stevens voluntarily offered to give this defendant 8 per cent. interest,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garland v. Union Trust Co.
...v. Flack, 93 U.S. 344, 23 L. Ed. 949; Hutchinson v. Hosmer, 2 Conn. 341; Beckwith v. Windsor Mfg. Co., 14 Conn. 594; Stevens v. Staples, 64 Minn. 3, 65 N.W. 959; Carpenter v. Lamphere, 70 Minn. 542, 73 N.W. 514; Surv. Part. Massey McKesson Co. v. McDowell, 20 N.C. 252; Ketchum v. Barber et ......
- Bristow v. Cent. State Bank
-
Peightal v. Cotton States Bldg. Co.
...on trial, where the court can go behind the returns, and inquire and ascertain the intent and motives of the parties." Stevens v. Staples (Minn.) 65 N. W. 959. Where the transaction disclosed by the evidence is per se usurious, the court is authorized to charge the jury to that effect. If, ......
-
Bristow v. Central State Bank
... ... Flack, 93 U.S. 344, 33 L.Ed. 949; Hutchinson v ... Hosmer, 2 Conn. 341; Beckwith v. Windsor Mfg ... Co., 14 Conn. 594; Stevens v. Staples, 64 Minn ... 3 65 N.W. 959; Carpenter v. Lamphere, 70 Minn. 542, ... 73 N.W. 514; Surv. Part. Massey McKesson Co. v ... McDowell, 20 ... ...