Manning v. . Tyler
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme CourL The defendants were sued on a promissory note for $300—Eaynor as maker, and Tyler as indorser.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme CourL The defendants were sued on a promissory note for $300—Eaynor as maker, and Tyler as indorser. The answer purported to set up the defence of usury in this manner:- It stated that “about six months” prior to the date of the note in suit, Eaynor made a note for the same amount payable in three months: procured Tyler to indorse it for his accommodation, “which said note Was got rip for the purpose of enabling said Eaynor to raise the money thereon;” that Eaynor “ thereupon applied to the plaintiff to loan him the money on said note for said three months, and the…
1Opinion of the CourtBacon, J.
That the answer in this case is bad, within all the rules of pleading heretofore recognized in the courts, cannot, I think, be questioned. It consists, in effect, of nothing more than a general averment that the note on which the suit is brought is void for usury. It does not aver what the usurious agreement was: between whom it was madethe quantum of usurious interest that was agreed upon and received, nor that the agreement was intentionally usurious and corrupt. The old rule of pleading required all this particularity. Thus, in Vroom v. Ditmas (4 Paige, 526), the Chancellor, speaking of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vroom v. DitmasNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- The People v. . McCumberNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- New-Orleans Gas Light & Banking Co. v. DudleyNew York Court of Chancery · 1840
3Cited by25 opinions
- Munter & Faber v. LinnSupreme Court of Alabama · 1878
- Western Transportation & Coal Co. of Michigan v. KilderhouseNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Central Building & Loan Ass'n v. LampsonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Chapuis v. MathotNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Stein v. SlomkowskiSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1920
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.