Minnesota Supreme Court, 1885

Strait v. Frary

Strait v. Frary
Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided February 6, 1885 · Gilfillan
33 Minn. 194; 22 N.W. 295; 1885 Minn. LEXIS 40 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

M. E. Mathews, for appellant., A. C. Forbes, for respondent.

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 1890, 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

Strait v. Frary

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite 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

Gilfillan, C. J.

As the facts are found by the court below, the case, so far as concerns the question of usury, is not distinguishable *195from Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211, and Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495. Those decisions are followed in this case.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.