From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kanevsky v. Taran

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Dec 24, 1931
240 N.W. 103 (Minn. 1931)

Opinion

No. 28,695.

December 24, 1931.

Usury — loan not usurious.

1. The evidence sustains a finding that the loan was not usurious.

Same — bona fide purchaser of certificate of mortgage foreclosure sale.

2. Where one buys a certificate of mortgage foreclosure sale and pays his money without any notice of the usurious character of the mortgage, he is protected as a bona fide purchaser of the property.

Action in the district court for Ramsey county to cancel on the ground of usury a note and mortgage securing the same and the foreclosure thereof. The court, Brill, J. found that the mortgage executed by plaintiffs was free from any defense of usury, and plaintiffs appealed from the judgment entered pursuant thereto. Affirmed.

Peterson Oehler, for appellants.

Samuel Lipschultz, for respondents Gussie and Sam Taran.



Plaintiffs appealed from an adverse judgment entered after the trial before the court without a jury.

1. The action was to cancel on the ground of usury a $2,000 note and a second mortgage securing the same, after a foreclosure of the mortgage. The loan to plaintiffs was negotiated by defendant Sam Taran. It ran to his mother, defendant Gussie Taran, who assigned the mortgage foreclosure certificate to defendant R R Finance Company. The loan was for six months. Plaintiffs claimed an illegal exaction of $150 in excess of legal interest and that they received but $1,850. This was denied, and there is evidence tending to show that plaintiffs received the full $2,000. An additional loan of $210.50, secured by two diamonds, is involved.

The record presents a question of fact, and there is evidence to sustain the finding of the trial court that there was no agreement for a usurious loan and that neither of the defendants Taran exacted an illegal rate of interest.

2. Under the findings of fact, which are sustained by the evidence, the defendant R R Finance Company was a bona fide purchaser of the certificate under a mortgage foreclosure sale and was therefore immune from attack on the ground of usury. Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495, 18 N.W. 450; Holmes v. State Bank., 53 Minn. 350, 55 N.W. 555.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Kanevsky v. Taran

Supreme Court of Minnesota
Dec 24, 1931
240 N.W. 103 (Minn. 1931)
Case details for

Kanevsky v. Taran

Case Details

Full title:MORRIS KANEVSKY AND ANOTHER v. GUSSIE TARAN AND OTHERS

Court:Supreme Court of Minnesota

Date published: Dec 24, 1931

Citations

240 N.W. 103 (Minn. 1931)
240 N.W. 103