First National Bank v. American Near East & Black Sea Line, Inc.

119 Misc. 650
New York Supreme Court·Decided December 15, 1922·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Lewis, J.

The answer alleges that it was agreed between Samuel Clark Williams and the defendants that the corporation appear as maker and the individual defendants as indorsers; that, in fact, no money was loaned to the corporation, but the loan was to the individual defendants, and that it was all pursuant to a plan to evade the usury statute, because the maker, being a corporation, would be unable, by reason of the statute, to avail itself of the defense of usury.

The law is that if there is notice of an intent to take usury the lender cannot evade the statute by disguising the borrower. Grannis v. Stevens, 216 N. Y. 583; Schanz v. Sotscheck, 167 App. Div. 202; Gilbert v. Real Estate Co. of Brooklyn, 155 id. 411.

The motion for judgment is denied.

Ordered accordingly.

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

First National Bank v. American Near East & Black Sea Line, Inc., 119 Misc. 650 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1922).

119 Misc. 650 (First National Bank v. American Near East & Black Sea Line, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gangadean v. FLORI INVESTMENT COMPANY
466 P.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1970)
Silver v. Michelle Gardens, Inc.
32 Pa. D. & C.2d 289 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1963)
Gelber v. Kugel's Tavern, Inc.
89 A.2d 654 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1952)
North River Mortgage Corp. v. 254 Sixth Ave. Realty Corp.
136 Misc. 342 (New York Supreme Court, 1930)