Lomer v. . Meeker
New York Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
The testimony given on the trial, made out a clear case of usury. The undisputed evidence established a complete defence to the action. There was no conflicting evidence, and nothing proper to be submitted to the jury. It was the duty of the court, in such case, to dismiss the complaint, or nonsuit the plaintiff, or direct a verdict for the defendants. It is a mistake to suppose that, because the evidence came from the defendant, after the plaintiff had rested, the case must go to the jury. In Pratt v.Hull (13 Johns., 334), it was held to be the duty of the court to nonsuit when the evidence…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dowe v. SchuttNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Pratt v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Woodburn v. ChamberlinNew York Supreme Court · 1854
3Cited by73 opinions
- Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Elwood v. . the Western Union Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Hull v. . LittauerNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Dwight v. . Germania Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.