Thurston v. . Cornell
New York Court of Appeals
This was an action against principal and sureties, on a promissory note for $412 and interest, payable in one year, made to the Plaintiff for money loaned. The defence was usury.
Read the full summary
This was an action against principal and sureties, on a promissory note for $412 and interest, payable in one year, made to the Plaintiff for money loaned. The defence was usury. The evidence bearing upon the negotiation between the parties was conflicting ; the Defendant, Cornell, who obtained the loan, testifying that it was at first expressly agreed that he should pay ten per cent, for the money, and that the rate was subsequently augmented to about thirteen per cent.; while the Plaintiff testified that the sum reserved by her out of the amount indicated by the face of the note, viz., the…
1Opinion of the CourtDwight, J.
The act forbidden by the statute as usury, and which vitiates all contracts into which it enters, is defined to be the reserving or taking of any greater sum or value than seven per cent, for the loan or forbearance of money. The rule is simple : its application, depending, as it does, upon the facts of each particular case, is sometimes involved in difficulty.
In this case, there being a direct conflict between the evidence of the Plaintiff and that of the Defendant, Cornell, upon the material facts, and the jury having found in favor of the former, the facts must be taken to be as testified…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Seymour v. . WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Harger v. McCulloughNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Rose v. DicksonNew York Supreme Court · 1810
3Cited by59 opinions
- Dillon v. . AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Nash v. Minnesota Title Insurance & Trust Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1895
- Wallace v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- People v. LevanNew York Court of Appeals · 1945
- Covington v. FisherSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1908
54 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.