East River Bank v. Hoyt
New York Supreme Court
Where a bank, as a condition of the discount of a promissory note, requires that the party shall have another note discounted having the same time to run, and shall leave the proceeds of the latter note in the bank to the credit of the party until the notes become due, and requires the deposit of a check of the party on this money bearing date the day the note will be payable, it is a clear case of usury.
Read the full summary
Where a bank, as a condition of the discount of a promissory note, requires that the party shall have another note discounted having the same time to run, and shall leave the proceeds of the latter note in the bank to the credit of the party until the notes become due, and requires the deposit of a check of the party on this money bearing date the day the note will be payable, it is a clear case of usury. Although it is settled that a new trial will not be granted in actions for penalties on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of evidence, where the verdict is for the defendant;…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court, Ingraham, P. Justice.
A motion was made before me for a new trial in this case, founded on the minutes of testimony.
Upon the trial it was proven by witnesses that when the note on which the suit was brought was discounted by the bank, it was required as a condition of the discount, that the parties should have another note discounted having the same time to run, and should leave the proceeds of the latter note in the bank until the notes became due. The precedent cited required the party to whom the discount was credited, to give a check on this money bearing date the day the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Rice v. Welling & FakeNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Overseers of Poor v. LuntNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Mansfield v. WheelerNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by1 opinion
- Kummer v. Christopher & East Tenth Street RailroadNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1893