Barrows v. Doty

1 Harr. Ch. 1
Michigan Court of Chancery·Decided July 1, 1839·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The Chancellor.

This bill cannot be sustained, for the usury was a good defence.at law,- and Tryon being the agent who negotiated the loan, must have known all the facts, and might have been called as a witness.

The complainants have suffered judgments to be taken on the notes, with a knowledge of all the facts, without making their defence, and they come . too late to this court to ask to be relieved against those judgments. (See Thompson vs. Burry & Van Buren, 3 J C. R., 395. Lansing vs. Eddy, 1 J C. R., 49.) The injunction must be dissolved and the bill dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Barrows v. Doty, 1 Harr. Ch. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1839).

1 Harr. Ch. 1 (Barrows v. Doty) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Ex Rel. Fletcher v. Ruhe
52 P. 274 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1898)