White v. Kaminsky

The Chancellor held that the foreclosure was regular and valid. This decree was reversed by the Court of Appeals, the latter court holding that usury appeared upon the face of the note secured by the trust deed foreclosed. It appears that the question of usury appearing on the face of the note was not made before the Chancellor hut was made for the first time before the Court of Appeals. So, the only question presented on this hearing is whether or not there was a patent ambiguity or a latent ambiguity.

It is conceded that the foreclosure was regular and that proper advertisement was made and…