Rogers v. Rathbun
This text of 1 Johns. Ch. 367 (Rogers v. Rathbun) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The bill prays for a discovery of the usury charged, and, consequently, to subject the defend[368]*368ant to a forfeiture at law of his whole debt; and as the till does not contain an offer, or tender, of the sum actually borrowed, with the lawful interest, after crediting the eleven per cent, already advanced, the motion cannot be granted. jj. jg a principle, that he who seeks equity, must do equity; and if the borrower comes into this court for relief against his usurious contract, he must do what is right, as between the parties, by bringing into court the money actually advanced, with the legal interest, and then the court will lend him its aid as against the usurious excess. To compel a discovery, without such offer, would be against the fundamental doctrine of this court, which will not force a discovery that is to lead to a forfeiture. (Bosanquet v. Dashwood, Cases temp. Talbot, 38. Fitzroy v. Gwillim, 1 Term Rep. 153. Viner, tit. Usury, 315. Chauncey v. Taheurden, 2 Atk. 393. Earl of Suffolk v. Green, 1 Atk. 450.)
Injunction denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 Johns. Ch. 367, 1815 N.Y. LEXIS 180, 1815 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-rathbun-nychanct-1815.