Bank of Burlington v. Durkee
Supreme Court of Vermont
This was an action brought upon a note of $2000, dated Nov. 9th, 1826, and payable in 64 days from the date, and discounted at the Bank the 16th of the same month. There was a jury trial in the County Court, and the defence set up was usury; and the plaintiffs obtained a verdict for the sum due upon the note.
Read the full summary
This was an action brought upon a note of $2000, dated Nov. 9th, 1826, and payable in 64 days from the date, and discounted at the Bank the 16th of the same month. There was a jury trial in the County Court, and the defence set up was usury; and the plaintiffs obtained a verdict for the sum due upon the note. It appears from the exceptions allowed at the trial, that the testimony offered by the defendants to establish the usury, was, that at the time of the discount, the sum retained for interest, or discount, was $21 33, the Bank considering the note to run sixty-four days from the time of…
1Opinion of the CourtHutchinson, J.
delivered the opinion of the court; The plaintiffs have brought their action upon a note of ‡2000, and the defendants contend, that the note is void by reason of usurious, interest, taken at the time the note was discounted at the bank.— The question presented in the case is, whether the County Court correctly excluded the testimony by which the defendants would prove the usury ? The counsel, in presenting authorities and commenting upon them, have extended their views to matters supposed to exist, and not technically within the case, nor noticed on their briefs. The case calls our attention…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Patton v. Bank of LaFayetteSupreme Court of Georgia · 1906
- Apperson & Co. v. FordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1861
- King v. Payan & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1857
- Staab v. Northfield Savings BankSupreme Court of Vermont · 1976
- Merchants & Planters' Bank v. SarrattSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1907