Gould v. Horner
New York Supreme Court
This was an action on a promissory note, purporting to be made by the defendants Horner
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Mitchell, J.
One defense intended to be raised in this case was that the note in question was usurious in its origin. The rule is established, that “ any pleading which sets up usury, either as a ground of defense, or a substantive cause of action, shall set it up in clear and distinct terms ; and the terms of the usurious contract and the" quantum of the usurious interest or premium must be specified and distinctly and correctly set out.” And it is added that “ it is reasonable that strictness should be required in this, inasmuch as the effect of such pleading, if sustained, is…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vroom v. DitmasNew York Court of Chancery · 1834
- New-Orleans Gas Light & Banking Co. v. DudleyNew York Court of Chancery · 1840
- Curtis v. MastenNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
3Cited by7 opinions
- Newman v. KershawWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Morford v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Gaston v. McLeranMultnomah County Circuit Court, Oregon · 1872
- Morris v. SlateryThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
- New Jersey Patent Tanning Co. v. TurnerNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1862
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.