Grieser v. Hall
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 1941, 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
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bomar v. Smith (Tex. App. 1917)
- Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz (Minn. 1941)
- Hatcher v. Union Trust Co. of Maryland (Minn. 1928)
- Hobart v. Michaud (Minn. 1928)
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
The issue in this case was purely one of fact, and the only question presented by this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to justify the finding of the court that the original promissory note, (of which the note in suit was a renewal,) executed by plaintiffs to Mrs. King, was not usurious.
We think the court may well have found that Mrs. King supposed that Warner was plaintiffs’ agent to secure the loan, and not her agent in making it, and that as such he was entitled from them to a- commission, of which he voluntarily gave her the benefit. This ■version of the transaction, which was justified by Mrs. King’s testimony, was entirely consistent with the conclusion that there was no intention on her part to take or contract for more than the legal rate of interest for the use of the money loaned, which is always an essential constituent of usury. The existence of this corrupt intent is always a question of fact to be collected from the whole of the transaction as it passed between the parties.
Moreover, the attitude which both plaintiff G-rieser and his principal witness, Warner, occupied with reference to the matter was not calculated to commend their testimony to the special favor of the court.
Order affirmed.
(Opinion published 57 bf. W. Rep. 462.)
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.