Hungerford's Bank v. Dodge
New York Supreme Court
THE plaintiff sued the Potsdam and Watertown Rail Road Company as maker, and the other defendants as indorsers of a promissory note, negotiated with the plaintiff and discounted by it for the benefit of the maker.
Read the full summary
THE plaintiff sued the Potsdam and Watertown Rail Road Company as maker, and the other defendants as indorsers of a promissory note, negotiated with the plaintiff and discounted by it for the benefit of the maker. The cause was tried at the Jefferson circuit, before Mason, J. without a jury, and it was proved that the indorsers were accommodation indorsers for the rail road company, and that the loan and discount to the company, upon and for which the note was given, was usurious. The rail road company suffered default, and the judge at circuit gave judgment against the other defendants, for…
1Opinion of the CourtW. F. Allen, J.
The plaintiff loaned to the Potsdam and Watertown Rail Road Company money at a greater rate of1 interest than that allowed by law, and to secure the repayment of the money so loaned, with the illegal interest, the note in suit was given—the individual defendants indorsing as the sureties and for the accommodation of the rail road company, the maker of the note. Judgment at the circuit was given against the indorsers, upon the ground that they were estopped by the c< Act to prohibit corporations from interposing the defen.se of usury in any action,” passed April 6, 1850, from alleging usury,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dowe v. SchuttNew York Supreme Court · 1846
- Holmes v. WilliamsNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
- Cole v. SavageNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
- Truscott v. DavisNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Green v. MorseNew York Supreme Court · 1848
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Smith v. AlvordNew York Supreme Court · 1866