Kent v. Phelps
Supreme Court of Connecticut
In the Court below, T HIS was an action on a promissory note. The defence set up was usury. On the trial to the jury, a deposition of Seth P. Staples, Esquire, was read, which, it was agreed, was true, and contained all the evidence in the case. It was, in substance, as follows: Thomas Service of Ne w-Yoi'k sent to Staples at New-Haven, an account against the defendant, for collection.
Read the full summary
In the Court below, T HIS was an action on a promissory note. The defence set up was usury. On the trial to the jury, a deposition of Seth P. Staples, Esquire, was read, which, it was agreed, was true, and contained all the evidence in the case. It was, in substance, as follows: Thomas Service of Ne w-Yoi'k sent to Staples at New-Haven, an account against the defendant, for collection. Soon afterwards, Staples went to Suffield, where the defendant lived, to collect, or secure the debt. The defendant said he could not pay it, and requested Staples to take his note at ninety days. Staples said…
1Opinion of the Court
The Go CRT
were unanimously of opinion, that the direction to the jury, on the first point, was correct ; but reversed the judgment, Chester, Brace, E. Goodrich, and llos-mer, Assts. dissenting, on the ground, that it ought to have been left to the jury, as a question of fact for them to decide, whether the whole transaction was, or was not, a cover for usury.
2Cited by8 opinions
- Smith v. WolfSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
- Lloyd v. KeachSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1817
- Brown v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1850
- Williams v. BryanTexas Supreme Court · 1887
- De Forest v. StrongSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.