Rogers v. Buckingham
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Assumpsit, on a joint and several note executed by the defendant with Aner Bradley, Jr,, and Scovill M. Buckingham, dated February 5th, 1853, for the payment to David Buckley or order, on demand, of the sum of five hundred dollars. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of the defense of usury. The case was referred to an auditor, by whom the following facts were found.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, on a joint and several note executed by the defendant with Aner Bradley, Jr,, and Scovill M. Buckingham, dated February 5th, 1853, for the payment to David Buckley or order, on demand, of the sum of five hundred dollars. The defendant pleaded the general issue, with notice of the defense of usury. The case was referred to an auditor, by whom the following facts were found. David Bulkley, the payee of the note, died in October, 1860, owning the note; and soon after his administratrix endorsed and delivered the note to the present plaintiff, that suit might be brought in his name…
1Opinion of the CourtButler, J.
This would have been unquestionably an usurious loan if made by David Bulkley. It was in fact made by his son as his agent. The question in the case is therefore one of authority. If the loan as made was authorized originally by David Bulkley, or was subsequently and intelligently ratified by him, it was usurious; but if the additional sum of ten dollars was exacted by and paid to the agent for the use and benefit of the agent only, without prior authority from the principal, or subsequent knowledge and ratification by him, it was not usurious.
*86It is not found as a fact that the agent was…
2Cited by24 opinions
- Call v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Brown v. Lasalle ArcherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Payne v. NewcombIllinois Supreme Court · 1881
- Jordan v. HumphreySupreme Court of Minnesota · 1884
- Vahlberg v. KeatonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.