Bayliss v. . Cockcroft
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The nature of the action and the facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. The finding, that the note was not delivered or received upon any usurious agreement, and that no usurious interest was reserved or received thereon, being wholly without evidence to support it, was error of law.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court, in the first judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff entered upon the report of a referee. The nature of the action and the facts appear sufficiently in the opinion. The finding, that the note was not delivered or received upon any usurious agreement, and that no usurious interest was reserved or received thereon, being wholly without evidence to support it, was error of law. (Matthews v. Coe, 49 N. Y. 57; Mason v. Lord, 40 id. 477.) The note in suit was an accommodation note, and had no inception as a…
1Opinion of the Court
Folger, Ch. J.
This is an action on a promissory note-The defense is that of usury. The note was made by the defendant to the order of Bobert Fellows as payee, and delivered by the defendant to Fellows, who passed it to the plaintiff. It' is claimed that it was an accommodation note, and that it never had legal inception before it came to the hand of the plaintiff. There is no explicit finding by the referee upon this point. What findings there are, are against this claim in their tendency. Thus, the referee finds that the note was duly made and executed, was duly delivered to the payee…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dillon v. . AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- McKown v. . HunterNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Dowe v. SchuttNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Fiedler v. . DarrinNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
3Cited by22 opinions
- Faulkner v. Mammoth Mining Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1901
- Middleton v. GriffithSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1894
- Toscani v. Quackenbush Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1934
- Washington Railway & Electric Co. v. CullemberCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1912
- Schwarting v. Van Wie New York Grocery Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.