Legal Opinion

La Farge v. Herter

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 31, 1853Published

1Opinion of the Court

The usurer is not allowed to show that an obligation, which he has taken in satisfaction of a prior demand, is usurious and therefore void, in order to avoid the effect of such obligation as a satisfaction of the prior demand.

One having a judgment against principal and surety, and execution levied upon sufficient property to satisfy it, received from the principal a mortgage npon lands for a sum exceeding the amount due on the judgment, the excess being intended as a premium beyond seven per cent, for forbearance, and the execution was indorsed “Satisfied” by the plaintiff’s attorney. After…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. La Farge v. . Herter and DillenbeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
  2. La Farge v. HerterNew York Supreme Court · 1846
  3. La Farge v. HerterNew York Supreme Court · 1848

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

Powered by the Exa API