Drake v. Watson
Supreme Court of Connecticut
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action qui tam, for taking excessive usury. The usury was alleged to have been taken of James „ Bancraft, on the 24th or June, 1805, tor the loan, lor-bearance and giving day of payment to him and one Thomas Bancraft.
Read the full summary
MOTION for a new trial. This was an action qui tam, for taking excessive usury. The usury was alleged to have been taken of James „ Bancraft, on the 24th or June, 1805, tor the loan, lor-bearance and giving day of payment to him and one Thomas Bancraft. The agreement, in pursuance of which the usury was alleged to have been taken, was thus stated: “It was corruptly agreed by and between the defendant and the said James Bancraft, on the 10th of December, 1804, and against the form and effect of the statute, that the defendant should and would forbear and give day of payment to said James and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
This is an action qui tarn, brought an the statute entitled “ An act for restraining the taking of excessive usury.”(b) There is a variance between *42thé contract declared on and alleged to be usurious, and the cohtract offered to be proved on the trial. The evidence did not support the issúe, and was with pro- . priety rejected by the court.
A moiety of the forfeiture, if recovered, would belong to the public treasury; and where such is the'case, the prosecution is limited to one year after the offence ⅛ committed.(a) More than one year, in this case, had elapsed, from the time of…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. RowleySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Merriam v. LangdonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1835