Dunbar v. Wood
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was assumpsit on a promissory note for $12,21, executed to the plaintiffs’ testator on the 7th day of February, A. D. 1824. Plea, non-assumpsit, and issue joined thereon.
Read the full summary
This was assumpsit on a promissory note for $12,21, executed to the plaintiffs’ testator on the 7th day of February, A. D. 1824. Plea, non-assumpsit, and issue joined thereon. The case came up on exceptions allowed by the county court, and stating the following matters:— On the trial of this case, the defendants introduced testimony tending to prove the following facts, which went to the jury without objection, viz:— That in the year 1821, the said Oliver Dunbar, the payee of the note, was constable of the town of Hartland, and as such, had in his hands for collection, an execution, to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered bky
Royce, J.
— There is not enough stated in the case to avoid the note for extortion or oppression. Under the other point two questions are raised. 1. Whether the original transaction was a case of usury. 2. If it was, what is the effect upon this note.
The first question depends upon the intent of the parties at the time. If the excess of six dollars-above the amount of the execution, when the testator and Denison assumed the pajunent of it, was meant only as a compensation for trouble and expense anticipated, it did not constitute usury- But if intended…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Chadbourn v. WattsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Gerlaugh v. BassettWisconsin Supreme Court · 1866