Rose v. Dickson
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of debt, on a bond, dated 20th; October, 1808, for 2,174 dollars, conditioned to pay , ,, _ . 1,08/ dollars, on the 1st November, 1811, with the interest thereon, annually.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt, on a bond, dated 20th; October, 1808, for 2,174 dollars, conditioned to pay , ,, _ . 1,08/ dollars, on the 1st November, 1811, with the interest thereon, annually. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non est factum. 2. That at the commencement of the suit, t^lere was due and owing to the plaintiff a sum less than-400 dollars, to wit, 76 dollars and 9 cents, and no more; ’ ’ . . , and that the plaintiff, at the time of commencing the action, was indebted to the defendant in the sum of 400-dollars, upon a certain note, or agreement in writing, made the 29th Ootober, 1808, by…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Ness, J.
The truth of the facts stated in this plea is admitted by the demurrer, and the question then arises, whether the sale of the stock being merely colourable, the contract is not founded in usury ? Each share of the stock is admitted, by an endorsement, upon the pleadings, to be of the nominal value of 25 dollars ? and this fact, independently of such admission, is necessarily inferible from the plea. The plea expressly avers, that the shares stipulated to be transferred by the plaintiff, were worth but two hundred and fifty dollars, and that it was corruptly and usuriously agreed, that. the…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Thurston v. . CornellNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Schermerhorn v. American Life Insurance & Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1852
- American Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. DobbinNew York Supreme Court · 1843
- Clark v. BadgleySupreme Court of New Jersey · 1826