Hutchinson v. Hosmer
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action qui tam, to recover the penalty, prescribed by the statute,(a) for taking excessive usury. The usury was alleged to have been taken of Thomas Rich, for the loan of 850 dollars for one year, secured by a note, dated the 2d of October, 1811, for 950 dollars, and the lawful interest. The cause was tried at Windham, September term, 181?, before Trumbull, Brainard and Hosmer, Js.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action qui tam, to recover the penalty, prescribed by the statute,(a) for taking excessive usury. The usury was alleged to have been taken of Thomas Rich, for the loan of 850 dollars for one year, secured by a note, dated the 2d of October, 1811, for 950 dollars, and the lawful interest. The cause was tried at Windham, September term, 181?, before Trumbull, Brainard and Hosmer, Js. On the trial, the plaintiff claimed, tbat the sum of 850 dollars only was loaned by the defendant to Rich, and that the note of 950 dollars, taken by the defendant, was made up of that sum, and 100…
1Opinion of the Court
Swiet, Ch. J.
I am of opinion, that the court properly excluded the testimony offered by the plaintiff, to prove that the defendant had taken unlawful interest upon a contract not stated in the declaration ; for if proved, the plaintiff could not be entitled to recover upon it, and the jury could neft infer from the fact that the defendant had taken usury on one contract, that he had taken it on another and different contract®
In regard to the notes offered in evidence by the defendant, it appears that he had placed his defence on the ground that the extra sum received by him was a compensation…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Garland v. Union Trust Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Chakales v. DjiovanidesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
- Mills v. JohnstonTexas Supreme Court · 1859
- Smith v. WolfSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Beckwith v. Windsor Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1842
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.