Coster v. Dilworth

New York Supreme Court

Coster v. Dilworth

8 Cow. 299

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1828

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 Cow. 299 (Coster v. Dilworth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Coster v. Dilworth, 8 Cow. 299 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1828).

Pincite

Opinion

Ouria, per SAVAGE, Oh.

Justice. The proper question was put to the jury, whose verdict cannot be reviewed here as to the weight of evidence. They have negatived the fact set up by the defendant below, that Johnson was a principal; which leaves the case much like that of Dagnall v. Wigley, (11 East, 43.) In that case, a bill of exchange, ■^procured like the note now in question, was held not to be usurious, upon the ground that the person advancing the money received no more than legal interest, the person receiving more, a broker, being the drawers’ own agent.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Ouria, per SAVAGE, Oh.

Justice. The proper question was put to the jury, whose verdict cannot be reviewed here as to the weight of evidence. They have negatived the fact set up by the defendant below, that Johnson was a principal; which leaves the case much like that of Dagnall v. Wigley, (11 East, 43.) In that case, a bill of exchange, ■^procured like the note now in question, was held not to be usurious, upon the ground that the person advancing the money received no more than legal interest, the person receiving more, a broker, being the drawers’ own agent.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Cow. 299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coster-v-dilworth-nysupct-1828.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack