Legal Opinion

Kent v. Walton

New York Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1831PublishedCited by 17 opinions

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the New-York Circuit in December, 1829, before the Hon. Ogden Edwards, one of the circuit judges. The suit wás by the second endorsee of a promissory note against the' maker; the note was for $650, payable to the order of H. Kennedy, endorsed by him to T. Ash, and by Ash to the Franklin Bank; it was given in renewal of a previous note for $1200, upon which, when it fell due, $550 were paid.

Read the full summary

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the New-York Circuit in December, 1829, before the Hon. Ogden Edwards, one of the circuit judges. The suit wás by the second endorsee of a promissory note against the' maker; the note was for $650, payable to the order of H. Kennedy, endorsed by him to T. Ash, and by Ash to the Franklin Bank; it was given in renewal of a previous note for $1200, upon which, when it fell due, $550 were paid. The first note was endorsed by Kennedy to Ash, who cashed the same, charging a discount of from If to If per cent, per month, and had the note discounted by the…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The judge was correct in both points decided by him. To make out the defence of usury, it was necessary to shew that the note was not a valid instrument when discounted by the witness, Ash. The presumption is in favor of the validity of a promissory note; it implies a sufficient consideration. It is well settled that discounting a business note at more than seven per cent, interest is not usury; a note valid in its inception may be bought and sold as a chattel, at its value, real or supposed ; but if it is an accommodation note, it is not a valid instrument until…

2Cited by17 opinions

  1. Eastman v. . ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Weaver Hardware Co. v. . SolomovitzNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  3. Marshall v. Chicago & Great Eastern Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1868
  4. Taylor v. MorrisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1872
  5. Burlingame v. RobbinsNew York Supreme Court · 1856

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API