Waterman v. Haskin
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff dedared on a promissory note made by the defendant, the 1st October, 1809, for the sum of 2,483 dollars and 2(5 cents, payable 60 days after date.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of assumpsit. The plaintiff dedared on a promissory note made by the defendant, the 1st October, 1809, for the sum of 2,483 dollars and 2(5 cents, payable 60 days after date. The defendant pleaded, 1. Non assumpsit; 2. Usury, stating the act; and averred, that at the date of the note the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of 2,410 dollars and 88 cents; and it was then corruptly agreed between the plaintiff and defendant, that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 72 dollars and 32 cents for interest, for forbearance of the 2,410 dollars and 88 cents, for…
1Per curiam
The replication is in conformity with several precedents in books of some authority. (See 2 Rich. C. B. 22. and Morgan's Precedents, 174.) It is also agreeable to the doctrine in adjudged, cases. In Baynham v. Matthews, (2 Str. 871.) the court say, that the common form of replying to a plea of the statute *285of usury is non corrupte agrcatu7n fitit, modo etforina, without a traverse, and with a conclusion to the country. This is precisely the replication in th~ present case. And in Fen v. Alston, cited by Mr. Justice Denison in 1 Burr. 320, it was held, that the plaintiff had liberty either to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Jackson ex dem. Schaick v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1825
- Whitney v. FrenchSupreme Court of Vermont · 1853
- Spring v. HewstonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1877
- Wright v. MinterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1830
- McArthur v. PorterOhio Supreme Court · 1823