Philadelphia Loan Co. v. Towner
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, with counts for money had and received, and money paid, laid out and expended. The note was dated at Philadelphia, the 31st of March, 1837, for 8984 dollars, payable to the order of the plaintiffs, thirty days after date, without grace. The plaintiffs were described as a corporation, duly created by the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania, located at and doing business in the city of Philadelphia.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit on a promissory note, with counts for money had and received, and money paid, laid out and expended. The note was dated at Philadelphia, the 31st of March, 1837, for 8984 dollars, payable to the order of the plaintiffs, thirty days after date, without grace. The plaintiffs were described as a corporation, duly created by the legislature of the state of Pennsylvania, located at and doing business in the city of Philadelphia. The defendants were Reuben H. Towner, of Middletown, in this state, and Solomon A. Marsh, of Philadelphia, partners, under the firm of R.…
1Opinion of the Court
Williams, Oh. J.
The first question presented is, can the plaintiffs recover upon this note ? To this two objections are made : that it is usurious; and that it is discounted contrary to the charter.
There is no dispute but that the note is usurious: is it therefore void ? As it was made in Pennsylvania, and the parties all reside there, except one, who was sometimes there, and sometimes in this state, the contract must receive its construction from the laws of Pennsylvania. Smith v. Mead, 3 Conn. Rep. 253. Medbury v. Hopkins, Id. 472. And by the uniform construction of their statute, a note or…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- President of the Bank of the United States v. OwensSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Fleckner v. President of the Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Life & Fire Insurance v. Mechanic Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Bartle v. NuttSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Beach v. President of the Fulton BankCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1829
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Pape v. Capitol BankSupreme Court of Kansas · 1878
- Manchester & Lawrence Railroad v. Concord RailroadSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889
- Heirs v. United States Bank of PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Youngblood v. Birmingham Trust & Savings Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1891
- Vaszauskas v. VaszauskasSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.