Simons v. Steele
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit against tbe defendants, as guarantors of the New-Hampshire Central Railroad Company, on an obligation of said railroad, a copy of which (marked A,) is annexed, and makes a part of this case. A copy of the guarantee (marked B,) is also annexed, and makes a part of this case.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit against tbe defendants, as guarantors of the New-Hampshire Central Railroad Company, on an obligation of said railroad, a copy of which (marked A,) is annexed, and makes a part of this case. A copy of the guarantee (marked B,) is also annexed, and makes a part of this case. The execution of both instruments was admitted, and the plaintiff rested his case, — whereupon the defendants moved for a non-suit, for the reason — 1. That no consideration appeared for the undertaking of the defendants. 2. Because it did not appear that any demand was made on the railroad, or notice given to…
1Opinion of the CourtFowleR, J.
The motion for a nonsuit rests upon four distinct grounds. The fourth, relating to the alleged usuriousness of the principal contract, does not render necessary any determination of the question, whether or not such a contract is to be deemed usurious, inasmuch as by our statute usury does not render a contract illegal and void, but only operates to reduce the amount of damages to be recovered for its non-fulfilment, where properly taken advantage of in a suit for its breach. Unless, therefore, it be shown, in the mode prescribed by the statute, that the amount of usury is so large that three…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Leonard v. VredenburghNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- D'Wolf v. RabaudSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- Hunt v. AdamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1809
- Dobbin v. BradleyNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Rogers v. KneelandNew York Supreme Court · 1833
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Gilbert v. ManchesterSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1875