Mechanics' Bank v. Foster
New York Supreme Court
The action was brought to recover the amount of a promissory note purchased by the plaintiffs at a discount of 11 per cent, per annum. The note was signed with the firm name of the defendants, S. H. and C. W. Foster, was drawn by S. H. Foster, one of the firm, for his own use, was not entered on the books of the company, and had nothing to do with the business of the firm.
Read the full summary
The action was brought to recover the amount of a promissory note purchased by the plaintiffs at a discount of 11 per cent, per annum. The note was signed with the firm name of the defendants, S. H. and C. W. Foster, was drawn by S. H. Foster, one of the firm, for his own use, was not entered on the books of the company, and had nothing to do with the business of the firm. S. H. Foster, after he made the note, sold it to one Furman at 11 per cent, discount, who sold it to the plaintiffs at the same rate. The answer denied that the plaintiffs were bona fide holders of the note, and averred…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Ingraham, P. J.
It is very clear, if the de*48fendants had set up the defence of usury in the answer, they would have succeeded in their defence.
The note was made for the accommodation of one of the defendants, and was sold by him at a usurious rate of interest. It was therefore clearly void for usury, not only in the hands of Furman, but of any other subsequent holder. But as the defendant has not pleaded this matter as a defence, if is equally clear that he cannot now defeat the plaintiff’s recovery for this cause.
The defence now relied on is that the note, so far as it purports…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Holmes v. WilliamsNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
- Keutgen v. ParksThe Superior Court of New York City · 1848
- Steinhart v. BokerNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Wilde v. ArmsbyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1850
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cary v. Western Union Telephone Co.New York Supreme Court · 1888