Spring v. Reed

New Jersey Court of Chancery

Spring v. Reed

28 N.J. Eq. 345

DecidedMay 15, 1877

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.J. Eq. 345 (Spring v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Jersey Court of Chancery primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Spring v. Reed, 28 N.J. Eq. 345 (N.J. Ct. App. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

The Chancellor.

The only question submitted upon the hearing was, whether the defence of usury is established. The mortgagor evidently paid a large commission in the negotiation of the loan of $6,000, and it is probable that he paid a large one on the subsequent loan of $8,000; but it does not appear that Mrs. Spring, the mortgagee, or Seth G. Babcock, her agent in making the loans, received or had any benefit from those commissions. The proof is that she lent the whole of the $8,000. The defence of usury is not established, and there will be a decree for the complainant accordingly.

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

The Chancellor.

The only question submitted upon the hearing was, whether the defence of usury is established. The mortgagor evidently paid a large commission in the negotiation of the loan of $6,000, and it is probable that he paid a large one on the subsequent loan of $8,000; but it does not appear that Mrs. Spring, the mortgagee, or Seth G. Babcock, her agent in making the loans, received or had any benefit from those commissions. The proof is that she lent the whole of the $8,000. The defence of usury is not established, and there will be a decree for the complainant accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.J. Eq. 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spring-v-reed-njch-1877.