Crippen v. Heermance
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decree of the vice chancellor of the eighth circuit. The hill was filed to foreclose a mortgage, and the defendant set up the defence of usury.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the vice chancellor of the eighth circuit. The hill was filed to foreclose a mortgage, and the defendant set up the defence of usury. The facts of the case, as they appeared from the pleadings and proofs, were substantially as follows ; In the spring of 1836, the complainant and his brother, being the owners of a farm in the town of Penfield, contracted to sell the same to the defendant, for $2400. One fourth of the purchase money was paid at the time of the execution of the contract, and the residue, with interest, was to be paid in the month of October…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
I think the vice chancellor erred in supposing the $300 included in the bond and mortgage in this case was not in fact an usurious premium, for the forbearance of the payment of the $710, for the term of four months, in addition to the legal interest. Although the parties agreed to call the transaction a resale of the farm, it is evident that it was a mere device to evade the usury law ; by calling that a resale which was in fact an agreement for the forbearance of payment for four months, at the enormous rate of interest of more than one hundred and twenty per cent per annum.…
2Cited by25 opinions
- Burnhisel v. FirmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Robertson v. BullionsNew York Supreme Court · 1850
- Rundle v. . AllisonNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Birdsall v. . PattersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- London v. ToneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.