Brewster v. Lyndes
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
THIS was an action brought by Seabury Brewster against Elam Lyndes and Charles S. Lyndes, trading as Elam Lyndes & Son—endorsee against the drawers—on a draft or bill of exchange.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action brought by Seabury Brewster against Elam Lyndes and Charles S. Lyndes, trading as Elam Lyndes & Son—endorsee against the drawers—on a draft or bill of exchange. The plaintiff filed a copy, and the following affidavit of defence was filed: “George W. Soule, of the City of New York, being duly sworn, cloth depose and say that some time about the tenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, the deponent was called upon by Charles S. Lyndes, and by him handed a draft drawn by the firm of Elam Lyndes & Son, of which firm the said Charles is a partner, on one…
1Opinion of the Court
Tee Curiam.—
The lex loci contractus is to govern, unless the parties, by the terms of the contract, had in view a different place. Thompson v. Ketcham, 8 Johns. Rep. 189; Van Schaick v. Edwards, 2 Johns. Ca. 353; Ludlow v. Bingham, 4 Dall. 47, 61; Conframp v. Bunel, id. 418.
And by the laws of New York, which is the place of contract in this instance, a note or bill is absolutely void, where the consideration either as between the original or the subsequent parties, is usurious, and no shift or device is admitted to evade the statute of usury. Jones v. Hake, 2 Johns. Ca. 60; Wilkie v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ludlow v. BinghamSupreme Court of the United States · 1799