Wilson v. Hardesty
High Court of Chancery of Maryland
[The object of the bill in this case was the sale of certain premises which had been mortgaged to the complainant by the defendant, to secure to the former the payment of $500 00, with interest from the 15th October, 1840. The defendant pleaded usury, stating that the sum actually advanced to him on the day of the execution of the mortgage was only $470 00, and prayed “judgment, if he, the defendant, ought to be charged with the debt,” &c.
Read the full summary
[The object of the bill in this case was the sale of certain premises which had been mortgaged to the complainant by the defendant, to secure to the former the payment of $500 00, with interest from the 15th October, 1840. The defendant pleaded usury, stating that the sum actually advanced to him on the day of the execution of the mortgage was only $470 00, and prayed “judgment, if he, the defendant, ought to be charged with the debt,” &c. The complainant confessed the facts of the plea, and consented to a decree for the sum actually due. The Chancellor deemed this a waiver of objection to…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor:
The question, and the only question in this case, relates to the validity of the act of 1845, as a constitutional exercise of legislative power, so far as concerns pre-existing contracts and engagements tainted with usury.
The defendant insists, that inasmuch as the act of 1704 declares that all bonds, contracts and assurances whatsoever, made after the time therein limited, whereupon, or whereby, more than the rate of interest fixed by that act is reserved, shall be utterly void, it follows that the legislative authority is insufficient to give such contracts validity to any…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Satterlee v. MatthewsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Watson v. MercerSupreme Court of the United States · 1834
- Jordan v. TrumboCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1834