Bassano v. Rutherford National Bank

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Bassano v. Rutherford National Bank

8 A.2d 189, 126 N.J. Eq. 141, 25 Backes 141, 1939 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 38

DecidedSeptember 6, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.2d 189 (Bassano v. Rutherford National Bank) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bassano v. Rutherford National Bank, 8 A.2d 189, 126 N.J. Eq. 141, 25 Backes 141, 1939 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 38 (N.J. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Complainant filed the bill herein praying that a certain conditional bill of sale of an automobile executed by complainant be set aside and that the enforcement of the bill of sale be enjoined. The matter is before the court on an application for an injunction pendente lite and a cross-application by defendant to strike the bill.

Complainant alleges in substance that being the owner of an automobile he applied to the defendant bank for a loan in the amount of $260, which sum he received from the bank. He further alleges that this transaction took the form of a conveyance of title to the defendant motor car company and a re-conveyance in the form of a conditional bill of sale, calling for payments aggregating the sum of $337.50. He further alleges that the car was insured against fire, theft and so-called $50 deductible collision. He further alleges that he did not understand the various documents signed by him in consummating the transaction and that the transaction was in violation of the express prohibition of the so-called "Small Loan law" and the banking laws of the state. *Page 142

In my opinion, the bill is defective and the motion to strike must be granted. There is no allegation by complainant as to exactly what he understood the transaction to be, nor is there any prayer for reformation of the documents to conform to any such actual agreement between the parties. There is no allegation as to the price or value of the insurance on the car which complainant received in addition to the loan so that the difference between the amount of the loan and the amount to be paid is not necessarily usurious. The Small Loan law does not apply to national banks. R.S. 17:10-22. But even if the bill be deemed to allege sufficiently an usurious agreement, it is still fatally defective in that it fails to allege any tender by complainant of the amount admittedly received by him or such amount as the court may find to be proper. It is well settled that a complainant who sets up usury and seeks relief from a court of equity must himself first do equity by tendering back the consideration actually received by him. This doctrine was enunciated as far back as Miller v. Ford, 1 N.J. Eq. 358, and was expressly re-affirmed in Okin v. Broad and Market NationalBank, 92 N.J. Eq. 445.

The bill will accordingly be dismissed, and the application for a restraint denied.

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

Complainant filed the bill herein praying that a certain conditional bill of sale of an automobile executed by complainant be set aside and that the enforcement of the bill of sale be enjoined. The matter is before the court on an application for an injunction pendente lite and a cross-application by defendant to strike the bill.

Complainant alleges in substance that being the owner of an automobile he applied to the defendant bank for a loan in the amount of $260, which sum he received from the bank. He further alleges that this transaction took the form of a conveyance of title to the defendant motor car company and a re-conveyance in the form of a conditional bill of sale, calling for payments aggregating the sum of $337.50. He further alleges that the car was insured against fire, theft and so-called $50 deductible collision. He further alleges that he did not understand the various documents signed by him in consummating the transaction and that the transaction was in violation of the express prohibition of the so-called "Small Loan law" and the banking laws of the state. *Page 142

In my opinion, the bill is defective and the motion to strike must be granted. There is no allegation by complainant as to exactly what he understood the transaction to be, nor is there any prayer for reformation of the documents to conform to any such actual agreement between the parties. There is no allegation as to the price or value of the insurance on the car which complainant received in addition to the loan so that the difference between the amount of the loan and the amount to be paid is not necessarily usurious. The Small Loan law does not apply to national banks. R.S. 17:10-22. But even if the bill be deemed to allege sufficiently an usurious agreement, it is still fatally defective in that it fails to allege any tender by complainant of the amount admittedly received by him or such amount as the court may find to be proper. It is well settled that a complainant who sets up usury and seeks relief from a court of equity must himself first do equity by tendering back the consideration actually received by him. This doctrine was enunciated as far back as Miller v. Ford, 1 N.J. Eq. 358, and was expressly re-affirmed in Okin v. Broad and Market NationalBank, 92 N.J. Eq. 445.

The bill will accordingly be dismissed, and the application for a restraint denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.2d 189, 126 N.J. Eq. 141, 25 Backes 141, 1939 N.J. Ch. LEXIS 38, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bassano-v-rutherford-national-bank-njch-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack