Legal Opinion

Van Schaick v. Edwards

New York Supreme Court

Decided October 15, 1801PublishedCited by 14 opinions

This was an action of assumpsit on three promissory notes. The defendant pleaded usury. The cause was tried at the Albany circuit in September, 1800, before Mr. Justice Benson. *The plaintiff being seised of certain lands in the county of Tioga in this state, on the 1st day of July, 1796. at Pittsfield, in Massachusetts, sold the same to-the defendant, and in consideration thereof took his bond for 12JS doLlars and 50 cents, payable in four years, and four promissory notes…

Read the full summary

This was an action of assumpsit on three promissory notes. The defendant pleaded usury. The cause was tried at the Albany circuit in September, 1800, before Mr. Justice Benson. *The plaintiff being seised of certain lands in the county of Tioga in this state, on the 1st day of July, 1796. at Pittsfield, in Massachusetts, sold the same to-the defendant, and in consideration thereof took his bond for 12JS doLlars and 50 cents, payable in four years, and four promissory notes for 25 pouuds each, lawful money of Massachusetts, payable in one, two, three and four years; and the plaintiff thereupon…

1Opinion of the CourtRadcliff, J.

The plaintiff has declared on the three notes separately, and in another • count, on an insimul * computassent; to each of the counts on the note the defendant has pleaded the statute of Massachusetts against usury, and the general issue to the last count. Two questions have been raised.

1. Whether the statute of Massachusetts applies to the case of a bona fide sale of lands, where there is no actual loan of money 1

2. Whether the contract, being in Massachusetts, relative to lands in this state, ought not, under the circumstances of the case, to be governed by the law of this state ?

Another…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Lodge v. PhelpsNew York Supreme Court · 1799

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Andrews v. HerriotNew York Supreme Court · 1825
  2. Kirk and Others, in Error v. Smith, Ex. Dem. Penn, in ErrorSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  3. Cox v. AdamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1847
  4. Fanning v. ConsequaCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1820
  5. Mandelino v. FribourgNew York Court of Appeals · 1968

9 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