Kilbourn v. Bradley

3 Day 356
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided June 15, 1809·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

The statute against usury, on principles of public policy, renders void contracts upon usurious consideration. But the lender incurs no penalty, unless he actually takes usury; and courts of equity, on relieving against oppression or extortion, order the repayment of the sum really loaned, or due, with the lawful interest. The moral obligation of the borrower to repay the principal slim actually loaned, with the lawful interest, is unimpaired. If the lender will expunge she usury, and the borrower voluntarily assents to repay the sum loaned with lawful interest, it is an act oí justice forbidden by no principle of public policy, and which constitutes a good consideration for a new contract.

New trial not to be granted.

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

Kilbourn v. Bradley, 3 Day 356 (Colo. 1809).

3 Day 356 (Kilbourn v. Bradley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Feldman
259 F. Supp. 218 (D. Connecticut, 1966)
Vermeule v. Vermeule
49 A. 608 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1901)
Seventh Ward National Bank v. Newbold
2 N.Y. City Ct. Rep. 125 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1885)
Sheldon v. . Haxtun
91 N.Y. 124 (New York Court of Appeals, 1883)
Mitchell v. Lyman
77 Ill. 525 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1875)
Welch v. Wadsworth
30 Conn. 149 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1861)
Ambler v. Ruddell
17 Ark. 138 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1856)
Miller v. Hull
4 Denio 104 (New York Supreme Court, 1847)
Cook v. Bradley
7 Conn. 57 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1828)