United States Bond & Mortgage Corp. v. Loughran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

United States Bond & Mortgage Corp. v. Loughran

239 A.D. 786

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 786 (United States Bond & Mortgage Corp. v. Loughran) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States Bond & Mortgage Corp. v. Loughran, 239 A.D. 786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellants to abide the event. We are of opinion that the court erred in excluding the testimony of defendant Frank C. Loughran as to his conversation with the individual in plaintiff’s office at the time he made his application for a loan, which resulted in Ms receiving an application blank from that person and which he filled out and returned to the company, and which was produced by it upon the trial. While the transaction as closed differed from that apparently contemplated by the terms of the application blank, the defendants, under all the circumstances, should have been allowed to explain the negotiations from their inception in the establishment of their defense of usury. Young, Hagarty, TompMns and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellants to abide the event. We are of opinion that the court erred in excluding the testimony of defendant Frank C. Loughran as to his conversation with the individual in plaintiff’s office at the time he made his application for a loan, which resulted in Ms receiving an application blank from that person and which he filled out and returned to the company, and which was produced by it upon the trial. While the transaction as closed differed from that apparently contemplated by the terms of the application blank, the defendants, under all the circumstances, should have been allowed to explain the negotiations from their inception in the establishment of their defense of usury. Young, Hagarty, TompMns and Davis, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-bond-mortgage-corp-v-loughran-nyappdiv-1933.