Shoop v. Clark
New York Court of Appeals
Charles Shoop sued James, Joseph L. and Nathan Chappell, in the supreme court, on a promissory note. Pending the suit defendant James Chappell died, and George R. Clark and Martin S. Newton, his executors, were substituted in his place.
Read the full summary
Charles Shoop sued James, Joseph L. and Nathan Chappell, in the supreme court, on a promissory note. Pending the suit defendant James Chappell died, and George R. Clark and Martin S. Newton, his executors, were substituted in his place. The note was for two hundred and sixty-five dollars, payable two months from date, made by Joseph L. Chappell, and indorsed by James Chappell for the accommodation of their brother Nathan Chappell, who had indorsed it to James and Amos Ray, from whom it passed to the plaintiff. The making and protest of the note were proved, and the defendants admitted due…
1Opinion of the Court
Demo, Ch. J.
It is essential to the defense of usury that there should have been a corrupt agreement between the parties to the loan, that the lender should have secured to him a greater rate of interest than that allowed by the statute. It is not of course necessary that such an agreement should be expressed in terms. If such is the effect of the transaction into which the parties enter, it is a usurious contract. If N. L. Chappell, in the case before us, had negotiated. the note, on *237which the action is • brought, to the Bays for an amount less than its amount with legal interest, without…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Condit v. . BaldwinNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Douglass v. WilkesonNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Douglass v. WilkinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1837
3Cited by1 opinion
- Leibovici v. RawickiCivil Court of the City of New York · 1968