Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Collins
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal from district court order (Blue Earth county) sustaining demurrer to complaint
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as the district court's order sustaining defendant's demurrer to plaintiffs' complaint was upheld, rejecting plaintiffs' usury and fraud claims related to a mortgage and promissory note.
Excerpt
<p>Appeal by plaintiffs from an order of the district court for Blue Earth county, Severance, J., sustaining a demurrer to their complaint.</p> <p>The complaint alleged that plaintiffs executed to defendant a promissory note for $529, dated May 11,1891, and due September 11, 1891, with interest at the rate of seven per cent, per annum,, secured by-mortgage upon certain real estate. That at the maturity of the note plaintiffs entered into a written agreement with defendant by which the mortgage was extended one year upon payment by plaintiffs of interest on said note to October 11, 1891, “also three per cent, on the face value of said note from said May 11, 1891, till September 11, 1895,” and payment oí six dollars attorney’s fees to a person named. That said mortgage and said agreement were duly recorded in the office of the register of deeds of said county. That the “said mortgage” and “the said agreement so made” “were and are usurious, fraudulent and void, and the rate of interest and the amount thereof secured and taken by the said defendant, for the forbearance of the loan” of $529 from September 11, 1894, until September 11, 1895, “was and is of a greater sum or value than ten per centum per annum thereof and therefor.”</p> <p>The complaint further alleged a foreclosure sale of the mortgaged premises to the defendant on December 4, 1895, and the execution by the sheriff of the county to her of a certificate of such sale, which was duly recorded. That the amount claimed by defendant to be due upon the mortgage at the time of sale was $567.06 and that the land was sold for $613.74, while the amount actually due was $529. That the amount taken and received by the defendant by virtue of such mortgage, agreement and sale was more than “ten dollars on each one hundred dollars of the amount of said mortgage and contract for one year.” That such sale and the proceedings thereof and thereunder were usurious, fraudulent and void. The prayer of the complaint was that the
Similar Rulings
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.