Carpentier v. Minturn
New York Supreme Court
.This was an appeal by the defendant from an order at Special Term in Kings county, sustaining a demurrer to parts of the defendant’s answer. The complaint was on two promissory notes for $500 each, and interest at the rate of three per centum per month, severally bearing date April 14, 1858, and made at San Francisco, California, by the defendant and- others, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
.This was an appeal by the defendant from an order at Special Term in Kings county, sustaining a demurrer to parts of the defendant’s answer. The complaint was on two promissory notes for $500 each, and interest at the rate of three per centum per month, severally bearing date April 14, 1858, and made at San Francisco, California, by the defendant and- others, jointly and severally, to the plaintiff. The complaint averred that a statute of the State of California, of April 13, 1850, authorized contracts in writing for the payment of any stipulated rate of interest on money due or to become…
1Opinion of the Court
The judgment was affirmed; and the following» opinion, given hy Gilbert, J., below, adopted as that of the court, viz.:
Gilbert, J.
I think the demurrer is well taken.
The California statute of limitations is not a bar here. Nor can it have the effect of varying the contract. That was made, and was to be performed in California. The law of that State, therefore, governs the contract. By that law the exorbitant rate of interest was lawful, and the plaintiff may enforce the contract in that respect as well as any other.
With respect to the counter-claim, it is alleged that there was a failure of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Vinal v. Continental Construction & Improvement Co.New York Supreme Court · 1889