McNamara v. Condon

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

McNamara v. Condon

9 D.C. 364

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 15, 1875

DocketNo. 4113

StatusPublished

This text of 9 D.C. 364 (McNamara v. Condon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McNamara v. Condon, 9 D.C. 364 (D.C. 1875).

Pincite

Opinions

By the Court :

We think the decree below was right. It is quite clear from the testimony that the new note was, by agreement of the parties, to be substituted in place of the third note of the series, and was to be entitled, in all respects, to the security and benefit of the deed of trust, as against the principal debtor, McNamara. The three hundred dollars retained by Condon cannot be treated as a payment. The purpose for which it was allowed might have constituted usury and nothing else. There is no case made which would justify the court in granting any relief on that ground.

The decree below must be affirmed.

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

By the Court :

We think the decree below was right. It is quite clear from the testimony that the new note was, by agreement of the parties, to be substituted in place of the third note of the series, and was to be entitled, in all respects, to the security and benefit of the deed of trust, as against the principal debtor, McNamara. The three hundred dollars retained by Condon cannot be treated as a payment. The purpose for which it was allowed might have constituted usury and nothing else. There is no case made which would justify the court in granting any relief on that ground.

The decree below must be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 D.C. 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcnamara-v-condon-dc-1875.