Legal Opinion

U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. v. Brigham

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1905PublishedCited by 12 opinions

Action on a promissory note.

1Opinion of the CourtClarke, J.

The action is on a promissory note. The defense is usury. The note, dated December 21, 1903, for «$3,333.33, payable .December 20, 1904, was made by defendant and another, payable to U„ T. Hungerford, who indorsed and delivered it- to plaintiff company. Plaintiff took with notice, as Mr, Hungerford was an officer of the company. The defendant gave 100 shares of the Goetz Manufacturing Co. stock, par value $100 per share, as collateral security. The note was given upon the renewal of a loan made November 7, 1903. The defendant relies upon an agreement under seal of even date with the renewal…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
  2. Welland Canal Co. v. HathawayNew York Supreme Court · 1832
  3. Brewster v. . StrikerNew York Court of Appeals · 1848
  4. Rosenstein v. . FoxNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
  5. Utica Insurance v. BloodgoodNew York Supreme Court · 1830

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Gilbert v. OttersonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  2. Holt v. RickettCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  3. Wolf v. Aero Factors CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1954
  4. Angelo v. BrennerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  5. Heubusch v. BooneSupreme Court of Virginia · 1972

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API