Dunlap v. Chenoweth
New Jersey Court of Chancery
On pleadings and proofs.
1Opinion of the Court
Backes, V. C.
This is the usual foreclosure bill and the defence is usury. The bond and mortgage were made by the defendant Emma L. Chenoweth to Horace E. Nixon, a member of the Camden bar, who evidently deals extensively in mortgage investments. According to his own statement, he has negotiated loans for more than nine million dollars, mostly in small sums. Mrs. Chenoweth, sorely pressed by creditors, applied to him for a loan of $12,000 *497on lier home in Woodbury, and agreed to pay him $240 to procure it. The mortgage was to be for one, two or three years at five per cent., if possible; if…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- United States Mortgage Co. v. SperrySupreme Court of the United States · 1891
3Cited by12 opinions
- Continental Savings & Building Ass'n v. WoodCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1930
- Chakales v. DjiovanidesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
- Anderson v. BeadleNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1931
- Ditmars v. Camden Trust Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1950
- Kobrin v. HullNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1924
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.