Montany v. Rock
Supreme Court of Missouri
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The circumstances show that the design of the defendant was to get the services of the -’ave-for the use of the money; i. e., $6 in services for $3 33 interest, each month. The transaction was made to appear as a sale, to cover and disguise the usury. He who could exact the usury, could dictate the terms, and these were the terms the plaintiff' was forced to accept. His favorite slave was surrendered with this receipt.
Read the full summary
ERROR to St. Louis Circuit Court. 1. The circumstances show that the design of the defendant was to get the services of the -’ave-for the use of the money; i. e., $6 in services for $3 33 interest, each month. The transaction was made to appear as a sale, to cover and disguise the usury. He who could exact the usury, could dictate the terms, and these were the terms the plaintiff' was forced to accept. His favorite slave was surrendered with this receipt. Usury is prohibited and will avoid a deed at law. See Atwood vs. Whittlesey, 2 Root’s Rep., 37; Hammond vs. Hopping, 13 Wendell, 510-11;…
1Opinion of the CourtScott, J.
This was an action of trover, brought by the plaintiff against the defendant in error, to recover a female slave. The plaintiff conveyed to *508the defendant the slave in controversy by an instrument of which the following is a copy : “Received, St. Louis, Aug., 1843, of Philip Rock, the sum of $400, being in full for my slave Maria; the said Maria mulatto girl, aged 15 years; the said Mary slave for life. L. MontanyN
Parol evidence was offered, tending to show that the transaction wa3 only a mortgage, and designed as a security for the sum of $400, loaned by the plaintiff to/the defendant.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- De Wolf v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hamilton v. FowlerCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- Ferguson v. SodenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Quick v. TurnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1887