Kilbourn v. Bradley
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial; . A his was an action ol ejectment, The demanded premises had been mortgaged by -Aaron Bradley, under whom the defendant claimed, to the plaintiff, as collateral security for the payment of á pro-Biissory note for 1,616 dollars and 75 cents, and interest.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial; . A his was an action ol ejectment, The demanded premises had been mortgaged by -Aaron Bradley, under whom the defendant claimed, to the plaintiff, as collateral security for the payment of á pro-Biissory note for 1,616 dollars and 75 cents, and interest. The defendant in her plea alleged, that this mortgage was made upon a corrupt and usurious agreement, which was set forth specially, in substance as follows: On the 10th of May, 1796, John Bishop applied to the plaintiff for the loan of 5,020 dollars, for one year. The plaintiff refused to make the loan, unless Bishop…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The statute against usury, on principles of public policy, renders void contracts upon usurious consideration. But the lender incurs no penalty, unless he actually takes usury; and courts of equity, on relieving against oppression or extortion, order the repayment of the sum really loaned, or due, with the lawful interest. The moral obligation of the borrower to repay the principal slim actually loaned, with the lawful interest, is unimpaired. If the lender will expunge she usury, and the borrower voluntarily assents to repay the sum loaned with lawful interest, it is an act oí…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Cook v. BradleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
- Welch v. WadsworthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Miller v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Mitchell v. LymanIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
- In re FeldmanDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.