¶1were 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.
2 Day 483
Kent v. Phelps
Decided July 1, 1807
Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1807-07-01
In the Court below, T HIS was an action on a promissory note. The defence set up was usury. Held: that Irish interest should be allowed. In Nichols v. Cosset, (c) it was decided, that a mortgage deed, securing a certain sum with seven per cent interest, executed in this state, to indemnify the mortgagee against an obligation given in New-York, bearing the same interest, was not usurious.
Decided 1807-07-01