Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

19 Misc. 433

Jennings v. Kosmak

City of New York Municipal Court

Decided February 15, 1897

City of New York Municipal Court · decided 1897-02-15

<p>1. Negotiable paper — Extension of time — Release of indorser.</p> <p>A mere agreement by the holder of a note to extend the time of payment and take other notes on condition that the indorser of the original note should indorse the new ones and not otherwise, which condition is not complied with, does not constitute an extension which will release the indorser.</p> <p>2. Usury — Proof of.</p> <p>The defense of usury must be pleaded with distinctness and particularity, and the burden of proving the defense as pleaded is upon the defendant.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>In an action upon an accommodation note for $480, 'proof that the plaintiff paid only $900 for the.note in suit and for another note for $560, the character of which is not shown, is not sufficient pj.'show usury in the sale of the one in suit, as the other note may ¿ave been business paper, which could have been sold for any sum, and the full amount paid for the one in suit.</p> <p>Sehuchman, J., dissents.</p>

Decided 1897-02-15

Schuohmak, J.

¶1(dissenting). Bauer, on page 13, testifies as follows:

¶2“ I asked the plaintiff whether he would discount the notes for me, and he said he would, and that it would cost me about one hundred and forty dollars. I asked him to discount both notes and he said it would cost about one hundred and forty dollars and I said, Well, T need the money; I have to' pay some other notes,’ etc. The notes referred to are the four "hundred and eighty dollar one and the five, hundred and sixty dollar one, and the plaintiff gave Bauer a check for the sum of nine hundred dollars (defendant’s Exhibit ¡No. 2) for the said two notes.”

¶3This shows that if there was usury both of these notes were tainted therewith;

¶4The above evidence, in my mind, constitutes an agreement on the part of the plaintiff to exact more "than the legal rate of interest and amounts in law to usury.

¶5The'motion for leave to amend the answer by making it conform to the proof was granted.

¶6The case was, therefore; a proper one to be submitted to the" jury on the question of usury.

¶7On the summing up by" the plaintiff’s counsel,, he said to the jury that the legal rate in Ohio was 10 per cent, and in Illinois and some- other western states people paid 10 per cent, and ■ as high as 20 per cent, for the use of money, etc., and the trial judge himself fold the jury "that-the defense of usury was an unconscionable one.

¶8*437There was no evidence in the case in regard to those statements of facts nor in regard to the laws of those states on the question of their “lawful rate of interest.”

¶9Defendant’s counsel objected thereto, and asked the court to direct the plaintiff’s attorney to Confine himself in his summing up to the evidence, etc., and took exception.

¶10I maintain this was error, and that said objectionable matters referred to by the plaintiff’s counsel to the jury influenced them prejudicial to the defendant’s side of the case.

¶11For said reasons I dissent and maintain that the judgment and ■order appealed from should be reversed and a new trial granted.

¶12Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

/19/misc/433 · .json · Public domain