Cited by

9 Cushing v. Cable, 54 Minn. 6 , ; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. McLachlan, 59 Minn. 468 , ; Town of Campbell v. Waite, 84 Minn. 254 , ; Ostroot v. N. P. Ry.

& Supp. § 9961; Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. McLachlan, 59 Minn. 168, 175 , .

As well said by this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Mitchell, in Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. McLachlen, 59 Minn. 468, 475 , , 562: “It is, of course, true, as counsel suggests, that usury is not to be presumed, but must be proved, and cannot be found on mere suspicion, however strong.

Co. v. Mc-Lachlan, 59 Minn. 468 , .

Waldo v. Gould, 165 Minn. 128 , ; State v. Mrozinski, 59 Minn. 465 , , 27 L. R. A. 76; State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393 , ; State v. Shattuck, 96 Minn. 45 , , 6 Ann. Cas.

Temple v. Davis, 115 Minn. 328 , : Missouri, K. & T. T. Co. v. McLachlan, 59 Minn. 468 , ; 27 R. C. L. 220.

“The courts will never set up their judgment against that of the legislature, and hold a police law invalid, unless it is clearly so, as having no reasonable tendency to accomplish the desired end.” State v. Mrozinski, 59 Minn. 465 , , 27 L. R. A. 76.

32, 41 , the United States circuit court of appeals, Eighth circuit, had under consideration a contract precisely like that before this court in Missouri, K. & T. Co. v. McLachlan, 59 Minn. 468 , , which the late Associate Justice MITCHELL, speaking for the court, there characterized as having been contrived for the purpose of evading either the insurance or usury laws, or both, of this state.

Cushing v. Cable, 54 Minn. 6 , ; Missouri, K. & T. Trust Co. v. McLachlan, 59 Minn. 468 , ; Kinney v. Mathias, 81 Minn. 64 , .

As stated in State v. Smith, 58 Minn. 35 , : “When a subject is within that [the police] power, the extent to which it shall be exercised, and the regulations to effect the desired end, are generally wholly in the discretion of the legislature.” Again, in State v. Mrozinski, 59 Minn. 465 , ; “The courts will never set up their judgment against that of the legislature, and hold a police law invalid, unless it is clearly so, as having no reasonable tendency to accomplish the desired end.” The law

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 , , to which reference is here made for a statement of the general terms of the contract here in question.

State v. Rodman, 58 Minn. 393 , ; State v. Mrozinski, 59 Minn. 465 , .