Trotter & Douglas v. Curtis
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Albany 1 \ u circuit, in April, 1320, before Mr. Justice Woodworth. The-1 . . plaintiffs were in the business of commission merchants, and of receiving goods and produce, and freighting the same to New-York.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Albany 1 \ u circuit, in April, 1320, before Mr. Justice Woodworth. The-1 . . plaintiffs were in the business of commission merchants, and of receiving goods and produce, and freighting the same to New-York. They accepted the drafts of the defendant, a country merchant, under an agreement, that the produce should be in their store, at or before the drafts became pay-ab*e* 1° their account with the defendant, they charged a commission, of 2 1-2 per cent, on the amount of the money x v advanced to meet drafts, where the defendant failed to send…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. There is no pretence for saying, that the commission of 2 1-2 *161per cent, charged by the plaintiff, for accepting and paying the defendant’* drafts, when the plaintiffs had not funds in their hands belonging to the defendant, out of which to pay the drafts when due, was usurious. There is nothing in this case, showing that this was a cover for the loan of money ; but it was charged and assented to by the defendant, as a reasonable compensation for the expense and trouble in negotiating the business in relation to the drafts. It is entirely a…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Elwell v. . ChamberlinNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- The Dry Dock Bank v. . the American Life Ins. and Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Smith v. . MarvinNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Brakeley v. TuttleWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1868
- Harmon v. Lehman, Durr & Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1888
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.