Mitchell v. Oakley
New York Court of Chancery
This was. an appeal from a decision of the,vice chancellor of the first circuit, dissolving an injunction upon the facts appearing upon the complainant’s bill. The bill was filed in- May, 1837. It stated that the complainant made a note payable to the order of J. H. Underhill, and entrusted it to the latter for the purpose of having it discounted at a bank, for the complainant’s benefit.
Read the full summary
This was. an appeal from a decision of the,vice chancellor of the first circuit, dissolving an injunction upon the facts appearing upon the complainant’s bill. The bill was filed in- May, 1837. It stated that the complainant made a note payable to the order of J. H. Underhill, and entrusted it to the latter for the purpose of having it discounted at a bank, for the complainant’s benefit. But instead of doing this, Underhill sold it to the defendant, as his own, at a discount of two per cent a month for the time the note had to run.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
There is no doubt, from the statement in the complainant’s bill, that Underhill has practiced a most atrocious fraud upon one or both of the parties to this suit. And if he obtained the money from Oakley on. *69the note, under the pretence that the note was his own, and under circumstances which would render the note void for usury in the hands of the latter if that pretence was not true, he ought unquestionably to be sent to the state prison for swindling. (2 R. S. 677, § 53. The People v. Haynes, 14 Wend. 546.) Independent of the question of usury, however, the complainant has…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. HaynesCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
3Cited by8 opinions
- Bank of Bellows Falls v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1856
- Smith v. Empire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Mallett v. Weybossett BankNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Exchange Bank v. MonteathNew York Court of Appeals · 1863
- Webster v. Columbian National Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1909
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.