Legal Opinion

Cutler v. How

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided October 15, 1811PublishedCited by 24 opinions

The action was assumpsit on a promissory note, made by the defendant, and bearing date the 17th day of April, 1809, by which he promised the plaintiff to pay and deliver to him nine hundred and twenty-eight bushels of oats by the 7th day of October then next. At the trial, which was had on the general issue, before the Chief' Justice, at the sittings after the last October term in this county the plaintiff proved the making of the note.

Read the full summary

The action was assumpsit on a promissory note, made by the defendant, and bearing date the 17th day of April, 1809, by which he promised the plaintiff to pay and deliver to him nine hundred and twenty-eight bushels of oats by the 7th day of October then next. At the trial, which was had on the general issue, before the Chief' Justice, at the sittings after the last October term in this county the plaintiff proved the making of the note. The defence was usury and fraud in obtaining it; and to maintain this defence, the defendant proved that the plaintiff, having, a few days before the date of…

1Opinion of the Court

* The Court

held that the including the 8 dollars 54 cents in the note was oppressive, but from the facts, as reported, it did not appear to have been taken as usurious interest. By the terms of the contract, the defendant might, by making payment in thirty and sixty days, have avoided every thing but the discharge of what was honestly due from him, for which the note was given as security. It was not then void as a usurious contract. The verdict relieved the defendant from every thing oppressive in the contract, except the sum included as the officer’s fees. That sum was directed to be…

2Cited by24 opinions

  1. Hume v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
  2. Begelfer v. NajarianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  3. Wolford v. PowersIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Willson v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1896
  5. Gaar v. Louisville Banking Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1874

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API