Seneca County Bank v. Schermerhorn
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
Assumpsit, tried before Moseley, C. Judge, at the Wayne circuit in February, 1844. The defendant was sued as the maker of a promissory note for $2500, dated July 4, 1842, payable at the bank on the first day of October following. The defence was usury in a prior note which formed the consideration for this.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, tried before Moseley, C. Judge, at the Wayne circuit in February, 1844. The defendant was sued as the maker of a promissory note for $2500, dated July 4, 1842, payable at the bank on the first day of October following. The defence was usury in a prior note which formed the consideration for this. On the 6th day of November, 1841, the defendant had in the bank two notes then past due—one for $2000, payable at the Merchant’s Exchange Bank in the city of New-York; and the other for $1500, payable at the Seneca County Bank. There had been a payment of $500 on these notes, leaving $3000…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Bronson, Ch.' J.
The question is, whether the note of November 6th, 1841, from which the one in suit is a lineal descendant in the second degree, was not contaminated with usury. The following facts were either proved, or might be inferred by a jury from the facts which were proved. On the day which has been mentioned, the defendant had two notes lying in the bank, which were past due, and on which the amount of principal -unpaid was three thousand dollars. He went to Mr. Fellows, the president of the bank, for the purpose of obtaining a renewal of the notes for three months; and…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Oliver Lee Co's Bank v. . WalbridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Towslee v. DurkeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860
- Gillett v. Averill & SeymourNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Cuyler & Sexton v. SanfordNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Oliver Lee & Co's Bank v. WalbridgeNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.