Gokey v. Knapp
Cases that cite this one
13 later published cases cite this decision.
- Greenfield v. Monaghan (Iowa 1892)
- Brigham v. Myers (Iowa 1879)
- Citizens' Bank v. Heyward (S.C. 1925)
- France v. Munro (Iowa 1908)
- Franzen v. Hammond (Wis. 1908)
- Ammerman v. Ross (Iowa 1892)
- Call v. Palmer (Supreme Court of the United States 1885)
- Jordan v. Humphrey (Minn. 1884)
- New England Mortgage Security Co. v. Hendrickson (Neb. 1882)
- Hopkins v. Hawkeye Insurance (Iowa 1881)
- Acheson v. Chase (Minn. 1881)
- Palmer v. Call (United States Circuit Courts 1881)
- Pond v. Waterloo Agricultural Works (Iowa 1879)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Although Danforth may have been the agent of Knapp for the purpose of loaning the money, and may have contracted for more than ten per cent interest, yet the loan was no.t necessarily usurious. An authority, to loan money at a legal rate of interest does not include by implication the authority to loan it at an illegal rate. An authority to violate the law will never be presumed.
When Danforth exacted, in addition to the ten per cent interest, which was embraced in the note, something for the benefit of himself, he went outside of the legitimate purposes of his agency; and as Knapp did not authorize it, either expressly or by implication, he should not be affected thereby. Story on Agency, section 170; Tyler on Usury, 156; Condit v. Baldwin, 21 N. Y., 219; Bell v. Day, 32 Id., 165; Rogers v. Buckingham, 33 Conn., 81.
Reversed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.