Legal Opinion

Hackley v. Sprague

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1833PublishedCited by 7 opinions

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Herkimer circuit in March, 1831, before the Hon. Nathan Williams, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiff sued as the second endorsee of a promissory note, for $350, made by the defendant, bearing date 10th February, 1828, payable in 90 days to the order of Sprague and Dann, endorsed by them to William Small, and by Small transferred to the plaintiff.

Read the full summary

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Herkimer circuit in March, 1831, before the Hon. Nathan Williams, one of the circuit judges. The plaintiff sued as the second endorsee of a promissory note, for $350, made by the defendant, bearing date 10th February, 1828, payable in 90 days to the order of Sprague and Dann, endorsed by them to William Small, and by Small transferred to the plaintiff. The defendant offered to prove that the note was made for the accommodation of the payees, and that they obtained it to be discounted by Small, at an usurious rate of interest. To bar this defence,…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Savage, Ch, J.

When the note declared on was made, and when it became due, it was void for usury; and the defendant had a right to set up that defence against any person holding the note, though he received it in the usual course of business, bona fide, and for valuable consideration. At common law the maker is entitled to the same defence against a bona fide holder for valuable consideration as against the payee, where the note has been transferred after due. The note being void by statute, that constituted a good defence against the payee, independent of the statute provision…

2Cited by7 opinions

  1. McCormick v. FallierSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
  2. Claim of Draper v. W. H. Draper & Sons, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  3. Booth v. . SwezeyNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
  4. Williamson v. Field's ExecutorsNew York Court of Chancery · 1845
  5. Higgins v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1865

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API