Rugland v. Tollefsen
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 1955, 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
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- Markle v. Haase (Minn. 1955)
- Leman v. Standard Oil Co. (Minn. 1953)
- Barrett v. Van Duzee (Minn. 1918)
- Zakrzewski v. Great Northern Railway Co. (Minn. 1915)
- Lufkin v. Harvey (Minn. 1915)
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
Upon tbe question whether, when she purchased the note in suit, the plaintiff had notice of its usurious character, the evidence, though scant, was probably enough to justify leaving it to the jury. But there was no evidence whatever that Eugland acted as her agent in making the purchase, and therefore the charge that if the jury believed that he was her agent to make, and as such made, the purchase, his knowledge as to the character of the note would be notice of it to her, and she could not recover, was erroneous, because it might mislead the jury into supposing they could, from the evidence, find such agency.
Order reversed.
(Opinion published 55 N. W. Rep. 123.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.