Tappan v. Sabin
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff ought not to maintain his action for the recovery of the amount due on the note, because he had at divers times taken and received of the defendant, for the loan and forbearance of the sum mentioned in the note, more than at the rate of six pounds in the hundred pounds by the year, to wit, the sum of $1.35 for the loan and forbearance of $90, for one year, to wit, at Claremont aforesaid, on the 13th…
Read the full summary
Assumpsit upon a promissory note. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff ought not to maintain his action for the recovery of the amount due on the note, because he had at divers times taken and received of the defendant, for the loan and forbearance of the sum mentioned in the note, more than at the rate of six pounds in the hundred pounds by the year, to wit, the sum of $1.35 for the loan and forbearance of $90, for one year, to wit, at Claremont aforesaid, on the 13th day of July, A. D. 1340, and on the 9th day of August, A. D. 1841, and on the 12th day of July, A. 1). 1842; and this he…
1Opinion of the CourtGilchrist, J.
The law in, force when the usury in this case
is alleged to have been received, was the act of 1791; N. H. Laws 133, (Ed. of 1830 ;) as the Revised Statutes did not take effect until the 1st day of March, 1843. Under that act it is necessary to state in the plea that the excess was received upon a corrupt agreement, in order to bring the case within the statute. Copeland vs. Jones, 3 N. H. Rep. 116 ; Olcott vs. Alden, 6 N. H. Rep. 516. The plea in tins case contains no allegation of any corrupt agreement, and for this reason it is defective. The demurrer is well taken, and upon it there must be
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Copeland v. JonesSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1824
- Olcott v. AldenSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834