Legal Opinion

Smith v. . Hathorn

New York Court of Appeals

Decided February 28, 1882PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from judgment of the General term of the Supreme Court, in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made September 20, 1881, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.

Read the full summary

Appeal from judgment of the General term of the Supreme Court, in the third judicial department, entered upon an order made September 20, 1881, which affirmed a judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. (Reported below, 25 Hun, 159.) This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage dated December 1, 1874, given by defendant Frank H. Hathorn to John Rowland, plaintiff’s testator, to secure four .promissory notes for the aggregate sum of $6,000, executed by him and defendant, Henry H. Hathorn, dated Rovember 2, 1874, each due three months from…

1Opinion of the CourtRapallo, J.

We cannot escape the conclusion that the uncontroverted evidence in this case so clearly established that the notes dated Hov. 2, 1874, were originally given to secure an usurious loan, that it was error to refuse to find that fact. If the only evidence of an usurious agreement had been the fact that interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum was paid upon these notes after they had become due, it might with some reason be claimed that such payments were not conclusive evidence that they were made in pursuance of the original agreement under which the notes were given. But the fact of the…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fidelity Bank v. Wysong & Miles Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1919
  2. Lusk v. SmithSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905
  3. Bosworth v. KinghornAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  4. Bank v. . Wysong Miles Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API