Cox v. Flagler

City of New York Municipal Court

Cox v. Flagler

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 423

DecidedJune 15, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 423 (Cox v. Flagler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cox v. Flagler, 2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 423 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, Ch. J.

Whatever the understanding was the night before, the loan made was - not usurious. The plaintiff loaned $300 on the note in suit for that amount. No interest was reserved or taken, and the agreement as executed is free from any vice. The intention, expressed the night before making the loan, to charge $25 bonus, was not executed, nor was there any attempt at its consummation. Usury is a crime ; but a mere intention, not followed by execution or attempt at consummation, does not constitute crime (5 Cranch, 312). The fact that illegal interest was neither reserved or taken or even demanded repels the idea that usury entered into the contract finally made. Intention is an emotion of the mind, best evidenced by acts and declarations, and acts control the determination of the question. “If a party does an act which defrauds another, his declaring he did not by the act intend to defraud another is weighed down by the evidence of his act” (Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N. Y. 632). The evidence by the defendant that the plaintiff said he intended to reserve $25 as a bonus is, under this rule, best negatived by the fact that he did not reserve or take [424]*424anything for the loan. The contract sued upon is free from any taint of usury, and the debtors may discharge their full liability by returning the money loaned (Tyler on Usury, 217; Bill v. Fish, 1 St. R. 473).

The verdict is right, and the motion for a new trial must be denied.

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

McAdam, Ch. J.

Whatever the understanding was the night before, the loan made was - not usurious. The plaintiff loaned $300 on the note in suit for that amount. No interest was reserved or taken, and the agreement as executed is free from any vice. The intention, expressed the night before making the loan, to charge $25 bonus, was not executed, nor was there any attempt at its consummation. Usury is a crime ; but a mere intention, not followed by execution or attempt at consummation, does not constitute crime (5 Cranch, 312). The fact that illegal interest was neither reserved or taken or even demanded repels the idea that usury entered into the contract finally made. Intention is an emotion of the mind, best evidenced by acts and declarations, and acts control the determination of the question. “If a party does an act which defrauds another, his declaring he did not by the act intend to defraud another is weighed down by the evidence of his act” (Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N. Y. 632). The evidence by the defendant that the plaintiff said he intended to reserve $25 as a bonus is, under this rule, best negatived by the fact that he did not reserve or take [424]*424anything for the loan. The contract sued upon is free from any taint of usury, and the debtors may discharge their full liability by returning the money loaned (Tyler on Usury, 217; Bill v. Fish, 1 St. R. 473).

The verdict is right, and the motion for a new trial must be denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-flagler-nynyccityct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack