Van Hamm v. Fox

<p>Abstract of the Decision.</p> <p>1. Usury, § 2* — when note is usurious. Where the insured under an insurance policy gave to a trust company his note for money supposed to have been advanced by the company in payment of premiums upon the policy and of a prior loan by the insured from the insurance company, upon which the policy was held by the insurance company as collateral security, and such note was made to include both the amount of such loan, which the trust company had not taken up, and six per cent, interest on the amount of the note and also bore six per cent, interest, so that the interest charged on the amount actually advanced by the trust company exceeded seven per cent., held, that the note was usurious and that the trust company would not be permitted by such shift or device to collect interest in excess of that provided by statute, but would be entitled in a court of chancery to only five per cent, on the amount actually advanced by it.</p> <p>2. Usuby, § 4* — not question of intention. Usury is not a question of intention of the parties.</p> <p>3. Costs, § 67* — when allowed because of appeal for delay. A defense being obviously interposed merely for delay and to wear out the opposite party in whose favor judgment was rendered, held that damages, to the amount of ten per cent., should be assessed under Rev. St. ch. 33, sec. 23 (J. & A. If 2737), relating to the assessment of damages when an appeal is for delay, in affirming the judgment.</p>