Manice v. New-York Dry Dock Co.
New York Court of Chancery
This cause came up on a motion to dissolve the injunction. Such motion being made on bill and answer. The facts, as they appeared on the pleadings, were these :— on the twenty-third day of February, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, the complainants, composing a mercantile house in the city of New-York, having occasion to make remittances to England, applied to the defendants, the New-York Dry Dock Company, for bills of exchange on London, to the amount of four…
Read the full summary
This cause came up on a motion to dissolve the injunction. Such motion being made on bill and answer. The facts, as they appeared on the pleadings, were these :— on the twenty-third day of February, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, the complainants, composing a mercantile house in the city of New-York, having occasion to make remittances to England, applied to the defendants, the New-York Dry Dock Company, for bills of exchange on London, to the amount of four thousand pounds sterling. These defendants agreed to draw bills to that amount, at a premium or advance of thirteen and…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor :
This is probably a case where, if usury does exist, the complainants, waiving, as they do, a discovery and answer from the defendants under oath, were at liberty, however unconscionable it may seem to be, to come into this court for relief, without paying or offering to pay any part of the notes or offering to refund the money actually received by them upon the bills of exchange. The defendants having the power in their own hands to obtain payment by means of the collateral securities, without giving the complainants the opportunity of setting up the defence of usury at…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Livingston v. HarrisNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3Cited by2 opinions
- Leavitt v. De LaunyNew York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Ayer v. TildenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1860