Curtis v. Masten
New York Court of Chancery
The facts in this case are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the chancellor, to show the grounds upon which the defence of usury, attempted to be raised by the answer, was overruled as impertinent.
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
This case com.es before me upon exceptions to the report of Master Ruggles, allowing eight exceptions to the answer of the defendant Masten, for impertinence. The object of the bill is to foreclose a mortgage given by Masten to Joseph D. Beers, as president of the North American Trust and Banking Company, and which mortgage was afterwards assigned to the complainants, as trustees, in trust to secure the payment of certain bonds of that association. One defence attempted to ^be set up in the answer was, that the bonds, to secure the payment of which the assignment in trust was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Van Rensselaer v. BriceNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
3Cited by8 opinions
- Security Loan Ass'n v. LakeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Gould v. HornerNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Waterman v. CurtisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Taylor v. MorrisSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1872
- Morris v. SlateryThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.