Minnesota Supreme Court, 1897

Mathews v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co.

Minnesota Supreme Court · Decided September 8, 1897

69 Minn. 318; 72 N.W. 121; 1897 Minn. LEXIS 276 (Minnesota Reports)

Counsel

William G. White, for appellant., J. II. Richards, for respondents.

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

4 later published cases cite this decision.

First State Bank of Cheyenne v. Fletcher (Okla. 1935)
Doyle v. American Loan Co. (Ark. 1932)
Trauernicht v. Kingston (Minn. 1923)
Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. Krumseig (Supreme Court of the United States 1899)

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

PER CURIAM.

Action to obtain a cancellation, for usury, of certain notes and the mortgage securing them, made by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The trial court found that the notes and mortgage were usurious, and directed their cancellation. Judgment was so entered, from which the defendant appealed.

1. The defendant claims that the judgment is erroneous, because the plaintiffs should have been required to do equity, and repay, with interest, the amount of money actually received by them from the defendant, as a condition of obtaining a cancellation of the securities. The statute law of our state2 is otherwise, as interpreted in Scott v. Austin, 36 Minn. 460, 32 N. W. 89, 864, and followed in Exley v. Berryhill, 37 Minn. 182, 33 N. W. 567. We are asked by defendant’s counsel to re-examine and overrule those cases. The statute was correctly construed in the cases cited, and we adhere to them.

*3192. It is further urged by the defendant that the finding and decision of the trial court to the effect that the notes and mortgage were usurious and void are not supported by the evidence. The contract here in question, as evidenced by the notes and mortgage, is identical, except as to names, dates, and amounts, with the contract held to be usurious in the case of Missouri v. McLachlan, 59 Minn. 468, 61 N. W. 560, to which reference is here made for a statement of the general terms of the contract here in question. A like contract was also held usurious in the case of Missouri v. Krumseig, 28 C. C. A. 1, 77 Fed. 32. We are unable to distinguish this case from the McLachlan case. The finding and decision of the trial court are sustained by the evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

G. S. 1894, § 2217.

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