Harris Manufacturing Co. v. Anfinson
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1923, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
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
This case is ruled by Johnston Harvester Co. v. Clark, 30 Minn. 308, in which we held a stipulation (contained in a machine note) for the payment of an attorney’s fee in case of suit, valid. By consequence it would not be usurious. In White v. Iltis, 24 Minn. 43, the court was of opinion that the interest clause was so peculiarly worded as to include the attorney’s fee mentioned, not simply as an attorney’s fee, but as interest.
Order reversed, and new trial ordered.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.