Vail v. Van Doren
Nebraska Supreme Court
Appeal from the district court of Red Willow county. Tried below before Welty, J, The facts appear in the statement of the commissioner. The dating back of a promissory note does not render the transaction usurious. (Banks v. Antwerp, 15 How. Pr. [N. Y.], 29; Muir v. Newark Savings Institution, 16 N. J. Eq., 537; Powell v. Jones, 44 Barb. [N. Y.], 521; Bevier v. Coveil, 87 N. Y., 50.)
1Opinion of the Court
Irvine, C.
This was an action by Vail to foreclose a mortgage made by Van Doren to one G. B. Bell, to secure a note for $700, dated December 5, 1885, and payable five years after date, with interest at seven per cent, payable semiannually. Van Doren pleaded usury, and the court found for him on this issue, allowing Vail only his principal less the interest payments which had been made by Van Doren. The plaintiff appeals.
Where usury is the defense, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show that he is a bona fide purchaser of the note. (Wortendyke v. Meehan, 9 Neb., 221; Violet v. Rose 39 Neb.,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Violet v. RoseNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
- Wortendyke v. MeehanNebraska Supreme Court · 1879
- Pierce, Wright & Co. v. DaveyNebraska Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by2 opinions
- Detweiler v. FormanNebraska Supreme Court · 1931
- State ex rel. Spillman v. Security State BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1927