Lomer v. Meeker
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment rendered in the New York Common Pleas. The action was upon a note for $1,000, made by Meeker and Maidhof, dated June 18, 1857, payable to the order of William Bock, three months after date. Bock indorsed the note, and the plaintiff claimed to be the owner and holder.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment rendered in the New York Common Pleas. The action was upon a note for $1,000, made by Meeker and Maidhof, dated June 18, 1857, payable to the order of William Bock, three months after date. Bock indorsed the note, and the plaintiff claimed to be the owner and holder. Meeker and Maidhof only defended, and set up in their answer that they made the note for the accommodation of Bock, and delivered it to him without any consideration, and that Bock procured the plaintiff to discount it at a usurious rate of interest, to wit, that, "by an agreement between them to that…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
The testimony given on the trial, made out a clear case of usury. The undisputed evidence established a complete defence to the action. There was no conflicting evidence, and nothing proper to be submitted to the jury. It was the duty of the court, in such case, to dismiss the complaint, or nonsuit the plaintiff, or direct a verdict for the defendants. It is a mistake to suppose that, because the evidence came from the defendant, after the plaintiff had rested, the case must go to the jury. In Pratt v. Hull (13 Johns., 334), it was held to be the duty of the court to nonsuit when the evidence…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dowe v. SchuttNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Pratt v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Woodburn v. ChamberlinNew York Supreme Court · 1854