London Realty Co. v. De Lacey

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

London Realty Co. v. De Lacey

117 N.Y.S. 899

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 29, 1909·Published

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

It seems almost conclusive, from reading the testimony of the defendant, that the loan made to the defendant was founded in usury. Before the case was closed, however, the plaintiff’s attorney, at whose office the transaction was consummated, requested to be allowed to testify in behalf of the plaintiff. This right was denied him by the trial justice, and this constitutes reversible error. Evidence might have been adduced which would have convinced the trial justice-of the legality of the loan, and this the plaintiff had the right to prove, if he could.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

It seems almost conclusive, from reading the testimony of the defendant, that the loan made to the defendant was founded in usury. Before the case was closed, however, the plaintiff’s attorney, at whose office the transaction was consummated, requested to be allowed to testify in behalf of the plaintiff. This right was denied him by the trial justice, and this constitutes reversible error. Evidence might have been adduced which would have convinced the trial justice-of the legality of the loan, and this the plaintiff had the right to prove, if he could.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

London Realty Co. v. De Lacey, 117 N.Y.S. 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

117 N.Y.S. 899 (London Realty Co. v. De Lacey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.