Legal Opinion · Dissent

George N. Fletcher & Sons v. Alpena Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 17, 1904No. Calendar No. 20,355Published

Mandamus by George N. Fletcher & Sons to compel Frank Emerick, circuit judge of Alpena county, to continue an injunction restraining the sale of certain bonds.

1DissentGrant, J.

{dissenting in part). I concur with my Brother Hooker that the proposed issue and sale of the *515bonds in this case is usurious. The defendants in the chancery suit admit that they proposed to sell the bonds at auction for what they would bring. The court, in its order upon the hearing to dissolve the temporary injunction, authorized a sale at not less than 75 cents on the dollar, thus sanctioning a rate of interest of about 31 per cent. It needs no argument to demonstrate the usurious character of the transaction. It is said in Schermerhorn v. Talman, 14 N. Y. 93, 117, “It would seem hardly to…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Schermerhorn v. . TalmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
  2. Commissioners of Craven v. Atlantic & North Carolina RailroadSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API