Schoop v. Clarke
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court. The action was upon a promissory note by an indorsee against the maker and indorser. It was made by the defendant, Joseph L. Chappell, to the order of the original defendant, James Chappell, whose executors have been made defendants in his stead, and was dated September 29, 1857, and was for the payment of $265 in two months from date, at a bank. The defense was usury.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court. The action was upon a promissory note by an indorsee against the maker and indorser. It was made by the defendant, Joseph L. Chappell, to the order of the original defendant, James Chappell, whose executors have been made defendants in his stead, and was dated September 29, 1857, and was for the payment of $265 in two months from date, at a bank. The defense was usury. It was proved that it was made and was indorsed by James Chappell for the accommodation of Mathan L. Chappell, who is the brother of the maker and the first indorser, and was placed…
1Opinion of the Court
Denio, Oh., J:
It is essential to-the defense of usury that there should have been a corrupt agreement between the parties to the loan, that the lender should have secured to him a greater rate of interest than that allowed by the statute. It is not of course necessary that such an agreement should be expressed in terms. If such is the effect of the transaction *184into which the parties enter, it is an usurious contract. If H. L. Chappell, in the case before us, had negotiated the note, on which the action is brought, to the Bays for ail amount less than its amount with legal interest, without…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Douglass v. WilkesonNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Douglass v. WilkinsonNew York Supreme Court · 1837
3Cited by2 opinions
- Leibovici v. RawickiCivil Court of the City of New York · 1968
- Hoeffler v. WestcottNew York Supreme Court · 1878