Lawrence v. Knies
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of debt on a bond. The cause was tried the Oneida circuit, in September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Thompson. The declaration was in the usual form.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of debt on a bond. The cause was tried the Oneida circuit, in September, 1812, before Mr. Justice Thompson. The declaration was in the usual form. The de.fendant pleaded non est factum, with a notice subjoined, that he, f . at tap trial, wpuld give in evidence, that before the making of the bond, “tp wit, on the 4th May, 1811,” it was corruptly, and ?Saa!St the form of the statute, Seo. agreed, by and between the plaintiff and defendant, that the plaintiff should lend and advance tp the defendant, 207 dollars and 38 cents, and that the plaintiff ^ould fprbear and g|ve day…
1Per curiam
The notice undertook to set forth specially the usurious contract. It was a substitute for a plea of usury, and in a notice, as well as in a plea, the contract must be correctly and truly stated, and proved as laid. A variance in a plea as well as in a declaration, between the contract as laid and the contract as proved, is fatal; and it is equally so, though the contract in either case would be usurious. The rule even requires the contract to he more precisely stated in a plea of usury in bar, than in a declaration in a qui lam suit, because the facts are within the defendant’s knowledge.…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Thurston v. MartinU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1830
- Fulton Bank v. BeachNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
- Frank v. MorrisIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
- Merrill v. EverettSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1871