Stanton v. Demerritt
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract upon a promissory note for 17500, dated “ New York, June 27th, 1873,” payable “ on demand, with interest,” to the plaintiff, and signed bj the defendant.
Read the full summary
Contract upon a promissory note for 17500, dated “ New York, June 27th, 1873,” payable “ on demand, with interest,” to the plaintiff, and signed bj the defendant. At the trial in the Cnp-orior Court, before Dewey, J., the defendant testified tha^g* consideration of the note was the return of a draft drawn by Lewis Rice upon the defendant, pay • able to the order of Rice, and indorsed by him; that both the draft and the note were made and delivered in New York, where the plaintiff resided; that at the time the draft was drawn and accepted and given to the plaintiff, which was in New York, it…
1Opinion of the CourtLord, J.
There is no question raised upon the bill of exceptions in this case, that was not raised and expressly adjudicated in Dunscomb v. Bunker, 2 Met. 8. In that case, as in this, the transaction was a New York one, and was governed by the laws of New York as the locus contractus. In that case, as in this, the usurious agreement was oral, and not incorporated into the contract itself. In that case, as in this, the suit was not upon the original obligation, but was upon a note given in payment of, or substitution for, or collateral to, the original obligation. In that case, as in this, the suit was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Commonwealth v. McClanahanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
3Cited by1 opinion
- West Side Motor Express, Inc. v. Finance Discount Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1960