Sheldon v. . Haxtun’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If this note for $1.000 had been given in this state (New York), even with the lawful rate of interest mentioned therein, in renewal of or in substitution for the prior usurious note, it would also have been tainted with usury and void. A substituted or renewal note thus given is held void for one or both of these reasons: The new note in such a case is given in renewal or continuance of the usurious contract, and is therefore void for the same reason that condemns that contract; or it is a new security for a usurious debt or contract and void on that account. But, a usurious contract can be purged of the taint of usury and money loaned upon a usurious contract can furnish a valid consideration form promise to pay the money actually loaned. If the usurious contract be mutually abandoned by the parties, and the securities be canceled or destroyed so that they can never be made the foundation of an action, and the borrower subsequently makes a contract to pay the amount actually received by him, this last contract will not be tainted by the original usury and can be enforced.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scott v. Fabacher

2. ““The contract of 1817, in which this mortgage originated, was executed in Kentucky, and had its inception in an intimation from Prentiss of a design to avail himself of the idea of usury. Upon this, De Wolf repaired to Kentucky, and Hiere instituted a new negotiation with Prentiss personally, having for its object to clear the contract from all usurious incidents, and to take security for the sum loaned, at the legal rate of interest of Kentucky, which, as well as that of Rhode Island, is six per cent. Accordingly, all the instruments of writing which appertained to the old contract were surrendered mutually, and n new mortgage given to secure the balance now sued for, the original sum having been reduced, by large actual payments, to the sum for which this mortgage was given, and which includes the same jJremises conveyed under the prior contract.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scott v. Fabacher

3. ““The surrender of the old note and the extension of time was ample consideration for the new note, but the substituted security was tainted with the vice of the original transaction. We need not consider how the courts of Illinois would deal with the question if the suit had been brought in that State. The fact that the original loan was at a rate of interest lawful in that State, does not make the contract lawful here, nor does the fact that the new note was made in that State and prescribed a rate of interest lawful there, take it out of the operation of the well-settled doctrine that a new security for a usurious debt is affected by the usury in the original transaction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gladwin State Bank v. Dow