Smith v. Beach

Decided June 15, 1808

This was an action on a promissory note, executed by the defendant, to Seth Bird, the plaintiffs’ testator. The defendant pleaded usury, alleging, in the usual form, a corrupt agreement, On the trial, it appeared, that more than lawful interest was reserved in the note; but that the defendant did not know of such reservation, until some time after the note was executed, anddelivered. The plaintiffs contended that, under these circumstances, the note was not usurious.

Decided 1808-06-15

Bv the Court,

¶1unanimously. A corrupt agreement is essential to constitute usury; and to form a corrupt agreement, as in all other contracts, the ittinds of the parties must meet. The assent of Beach was, therefore, as essential to the existence of, a usurious agreement as that of Bird.

¶2From these premises it follows, as an undeniable consequence, that there could be no corrupt agreement while either of the parties remained ignorant of the excessive reservation; and the jury ought to have been so instructed.

¶3NevV trial to be granted.