¶1The only question submitted upon the hearing was, whether the defence of usury is established. The mortgagor evidently paid a large commission in the negotiation of the loan of $6,000, and it is probable that he paid a large one on the subsequent loan of $8,000; but it does not appear that Mrs. Spring, the mortgagee, or Seth G. Babcock, her agent in making the loans, received or had any benefit from those commissions. The proof is that she lent the whole of the $8,000. The defence of usury is not established, and there will be a decree for the complainant accordingly.
28 N.J. Eq. 345
Spring v. Reed
Decided May 15, 1877
New Jersey Court of Chancery · decided 1877-05-15
<p>To render usury a defence on foreclosure, it must be shown that the usurious excess was received by the mortgagee, or his agent.</p>
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1877-05-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1971
1 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →