Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite Jordan v. Humphrey, 18 N.W. 450.

36 citing documents.

Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz 296 N.W. 911 Minn. 1941
Midland Loan Finance Co. v. Lorentz 296 N.W. 911 Minn. 1941
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , 18 N.W.
Bottolfson v. Ydstie 263 N.W. 447 Minn. 1935
In Re Estate of Ydstie 263 N.W. 447 Minn. 1935
Bottolfson v. Ydstie 263 N.W. 447 Minn. 1935
See also Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , .
In Re Estate of Ydstie 263 N.W. 447 Minn. 1935
See also Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , 18 N.W.
Kanevsky v. Taran 240 N.W. 103 Minn. 1931
Kanevsky v. Taran 240 N.W. 103 Minn. 1931
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ; Holmes v. State Bank, 53 Minn. 350 , .
King v. Smith 218 N.W. 102 Minn. 1928
King v. Smith 218 N.W. 102 Minn. 1928
The note in suit is not in any sense a renewal of or substitute for the one claimed to be usurious within the rule of Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , .
Blackey v. Alexander 195 N.W. 455 Minn. 1923
Blackey v. Alexander 195 N.W. 455 Minn. 1923
He did not testify, and there was “not a particle of evidence that the bonus was exacted without his knowledge or consent.” We agree with the learned trial judge that this case is ruled by Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , , and Bovee v. Butters, supra.
Bovee v. Butters 99 N.W. 641 Minn. 1904
Bovee v. Butters 99 N.W. 641 Minn. 1904
But under the facts found this case comes within the rule applied in Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , , where it was held that, upon a loan of money intrusted to an .agent for such purpose by his principal, and which is secured by a mortgage for the full sum loaned, with lawful interest, the voluntary act of the agent in reserving a bonus, or commission for his own benefit, without any collusion with th
Holmes v. State Bank 55 N.W. 555 Minn. 1893
Holmes v. State Bank 55 N.W. 555 Minn. 1893
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Chase v. Whitten 53 N.W. 767 Minn. 1892
Chase v. Whitten 53 N.W. 767 Minn. 1892
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Nye v. Swan 52 N.W. 39 Minn. 1892
Nye v. Swan 52 N.W. 39 Minn. 1892
Jordan, v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Lewis v. Willoughby 45 N.W. 439 Minn. 1890
Lewis v. Willoughby 45 N.W. 439 Minn. 1890
734 ;) Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Hass v. Camp 42 N.W. 20 Minn. 1889
Hass v. Camp 42 N.W. 20 Minn. 1889
734 ;) Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Lukens v. Hazlett 35 N.W. 265 Minn. 1887
Lukens v. Hazlett 35 N.W. 265 Minn. 1887
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Exley v. Berryhill 33 N.W. 567 Minn. 1887
Exley v. Berryhill 33 N.W. 567 Minn. 1887
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ( 18 N. W. Rep.
Nelson v. Central Land Co. 29 N.W. 121 Minn. 1886
Nelson v. Central Land Co. 29 N.W. 121 Minn. 1886
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 , ( 18 N W. Rep.
Bannon v. Bowler 26 N.W. 237 Minn. 1886
Bannon v. Bowler 26 N.W. 237 Minn. 1886
Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 .
Strait v. Frary 22 N.W. 295 Minn. 1885
Distinguished Strait v. Frary 22 N.W. 295 Minn. 1885
Gilfillan, C. J. As the facts are found by the court below, the case, so far as concerns the question of usury, is not distinguishable *195 from Acheson v. Chase, 28 Minn. 211 , and Jordan v. Humphrey, 31 Minn. 495 .
Jordan v. Humphrey 21 N.W. 713 Minn. 1884
Jordan v. Humphrey 21 N.W. 713 Minn. 1884