Fay v. Lovejoy
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Jefferson Comity. Foreclosure of a mortgage executed by Lovejoy and wife to one Merrill, to secure a note of tbe same date for $1000, with interest at 12 per cent. The mortgage and note were subsequently assigned, after due, to the plaintiff. The defense was usury: and the facts will sufficiently appear from the opinion. Judgment for the plaintiff; from which the defendants appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtDixon, C. J.
Usury is a matter of intention, and to avoid a contract on that ground it must appear that the lender knew the facts and acted with a view of evading the law. Otto v. Durege, 14 Wis., 574, and cases cited. There is no evidence that Merrill knew anything about the deduction of the 8 per cent, by Fay, or ever assented to it. The contract was, therefore, valid in the hands of Merrill; and being valid in his hands, it is also valid in the hands of his assignee, Fay. Fay acted as the agent of Lovejoy in procuring the loan, retained the three per cent, in his own hands, and then wrote Lovejoy that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Otto v. DuregeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by5 opinions
- Anderson v. Creamery Package Manufacturing Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1902
- Steuerwald v. RichterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1914
- Graham v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1881
- Wiesmann v. Town of BrightonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1892
- Johnston v. Charles Abresch Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1901