¶1We concur in the findings of fact of the learned vice-chancellor, and upon that ground affirm this decree without considering the question of pleading involved. Costs were properly allowed the complainant, this being a foreclosure suit. P. L. 1902 p. 528 § 53.
75 N.J. Eq. 607
Marsh v. Vanness
Decided June 14, 1909
Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1909-06-14
As to the defence of usury, the answer of the mortgagor contains an allegation denying that complainant is entitled to interest on the mortgage “for the reason that the said loan was tainted with usury by the said mortgagee demanding and receiving from this defendant a sum of money as a bonus for the making of the said loan, and also by receiving a sum of money in excess of the legal rate of interest allowed by the statute of the State of New Jersey on the actual sum of…
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1929
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1909-06-14
View the full empirical analysis of this case →