Cleveland v. Loder
New York Court of Chancery
This was an application to dissolve an injunction upon bill and answer. The facts as admitted by the answer were briefly these : In December, 1837, the complainant being the agent and overseer of a fancy corporation, the name of which, for the time being, was “ The New-York and Tuscarora Coal Company,” and being the owner of stock in the company, or at least having stock standing in his name on the books of the corporation, he applied to the defendants for a loan of $5000…
Read the full summary
This was an application to dissolve an injunction upon bill and answer. The facts as admitted by the answer were briefly these : In December, 1837, the complainant being the agent and overseer of a fancy corporation, the name of which, for the time being, was “ The New-York and Tuscarora Coal Company,” and being the owner of stock in the company, or at least having stock standing in his name on the books of the corporation, he applied to the defendants for a loan of $5000 for six months. The defendants agreed to make him the loan, at the legal rate of interest, upon his note secured by a…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
If it was a part of the agreement for the loan in this case, that the complainant should take uncurrent bills at a higher rate than their actual value, and for more than they were worth to either party in cash or current funds, the loan was usurious; although the com*559plainant intended to impose upon his workmen by paying them in a depreciated currency. But if the facts were as stated in the answer, that the defendants intended and expected to loan him current funds, and that the uncurrent bills were received in lieu thereof by the complainant, for his own accommodation, when…
2Cited by26 opinions
- Quackenbos v. . SayerNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Maxwell v. Jacksonville Loan & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1903
- Browne v. . VredenburghNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Leavitt v. . De LaunyNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. v. BrighamNew York Supreme Court · 1905
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.