Thompson v. Woodbridge
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Assumpsit on a promissory note made by the defendant, and dated January 14th, 1797, by which he promised to pay to the said Eleazer, then living, four hundred dollars on demand with interest. At the trial on the general issue, the defence was, that the note declared on was a usurious contract.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note made by the defendant, and dated January 14th, 1797, by which he promised to pay to the said Eleazer, then living, four hundred dollars on demand with interest. At the trial on the general issue, the defence was, that the note declared on was a usurious contract. A verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court, on the following facts, agreed by the parties, viz.: — On the 11th of January, 1796, the defendant made to the said Eleazer a promissory note for the payment of one thousand dollars within six months, with interest…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Where usurious interest is not originally contracted for, but is afterwards received, the party receiving it is subject to the penalty provided by the statute; but the note or other curity is not. avoided.
Judgment on the verdict.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Chadbourn v. WattsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Rollo v. Andes Ins.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1873
- Mitchell v. DoggettSupreme Court of Florida · 1847
- Willie v. GreenSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1821
- Lindsay v. HillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1876
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.