Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Smith v. Parsons, 57 N.W. 311.

36 citing documents.

A23-1267 Minn. Ct. App. 2024
Because Helena has not shown that the choice-of-law provision is unenforceable, it is “unnecessary to determine by the law of which state it would have to be decided had they not so agreed.”
Holisak v. Northwestern National Bank of St. Paul 210 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1973
Holisak v. Northwestern National Bank of St. Paul 210 N.W.2d 413 Minn. 1973
See, Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , and Swanson v. Realization & Debenture Corp. 70 Minn. 380
Combined Insurance Co. of America v. Bode 77 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1956
Combined Insurance Co. of America v. Bode 77 N.W.2d 533 Minn. 1956
4 Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , ; Swedish-American Nat.
Seebold v. Eustermann 13 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1944
Seebold v. Eustermann 13 N.W.2d 739 Minn. 1944
In Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520, 526 , , we held that the test is, “will the contract, if performed, result in producing to the lender a rate of interest greater than is allowed by law, and was that result intended?” Whether a particular transaction is usurious is ordinarily one of fact, not to be determined by (Dunn v. Midland Loan Fin
Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz 296 N.W. 911 Minn. 1941
Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz 296 N.W. 911 Minn. 1941
Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , 526 , 57 N.W.
State v. Rivers 287 N.W. 790 Minn. 1939
State v. Rivers 287 N.W. 790 Minn. 1939
It appears that our decisions, considered as a whole, support the proposition that generally the law to be applied in cases Avhere the issue of usury is raised is that intended by the parties (Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , ; Jenkins v. Union Sav.
Mesaba Loan Co. v. Sher 282 N.W. 823 Minn. 1938
Mesaba Loan Co. v. Sher 282 N.W. 823 Minn. 1938
See Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , ; Blindman v. Industrial L. & T. Corp. 194 Minn. 462 , .
Wetsel v. Guaranteed Mortgage Co. 263 N.W. 605 Minn. 1935
Wetsel v. Guaranteed Mortgage Co. 263 N.W. 605 Minn. 1935
In Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , , a contract called for the repayment in full of a $20,000 loan, with interest, and in addition thereto the borrower, previous to the time the full amount of the loan was received and as part of the transaction, gave to the lender a bonus of $1,000 cash and rendered to him services worth $500.
Hatcher v. Union Trust Co. of Maryland 219 N.W. 76 Minn. 1928
Hatcher v. Union Trust Co. of Maryland 219 N.W. 76 Minn. 1928
Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , ; Lassman v. Jacobson, 125 Minn. 218 , , 51 L.R.A.(N.S.)
Andrews v. Andrews 212 N.W. 408 Minn. 1927
Andrews v. Andrews 212 N.W. 408 Minn. 1927
205 ; Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , 526 , 57 N.W.
Rantala v. Haish 156 N.W. 666 Minn. 1916
Rantala v. Haish 156 N.W. 666 Minn. 1916
Applying the rule in the case of Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , , we find that this plaintiff actually received in cash $285.
Lassman v. Jacobson 146 N.W. 350 Minn. 1914
Lassman v. Jacobson 146 N.W. 350 Minn. 1914
Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , .
Temple v. Davis 132 N.W. 257 Minn. 1911
Temple v. Davis 132 N.W. 257 Minn. 1911
Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , ; Hutchinson v. Herrick, 58 Minn. 473 , .
Swedish-American National Bank v. First National Bank 94 N.W. 218 Minn. 1903
Swedish-American National Bank v. First National Bank 94 N.W. 218 Minn. 1903
Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , .
Swanson v. Realization & Debenture Corp. 73 N.W. 165 Minn. 1897
Swanson v. Realization & Debenture Corp. 73 N.W. 165 Minn. 1897
Plaintiff’s counsel relies upon the case of Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , , as directly in point here.
Olson v. Northwestern Guaranty Loan Co. 68 N.W. 100 Minn. 1896
Watkins v. Goessler 67 N.W. 796 Minn. 1896
Watkins v. Goessler 67 N.W. 796 Minn. 1896
Johnson v. Carpenter, 7 Minn. 120 (176); Hostetter v. Alexander, 22 Minn. 559 ; Oster v. Mickley, 35 Minn. 245 , ; Redin v. Branhan, 43 Minn. 283 , ; Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , .
Robinson v. Smith 64 N.W. 90 Minn. 1895
Robinson v. Smith 64 N.W. 90 Minn. 1895
They are a part of a series of notes secured by a mortgage which was decided by this court to be usurious and void, in the case of Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , .
Hutchinson v. Herrick 59 N.W. 1103 Minn. 1894
Hutchinson v. Herrick 59 N.W. 1103 Minn. 1894
The allegations, disclosing exactly what the transaction was, bring the case directly within the rules for determining whether a usurious contract was made, stated in Smith v. Parsons, 55 Minn. 520 , ( ,) anct it is governed by it.