Staples v. Nott

Citation28 N.E. 515,128 N.Y. 403
PartiesSTAPLES v. NOTT et al.
Decision Date06 October 1891
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from supreme court, general term, fourth department.

Action by Oren G. Staples against Sylvester G. Nott and Copley A. Nott on a note made by defendant S. G. Nott, and indorsed by defendant C. A. Nott, a copy of which is as follows: ‘$1,400. Washington, D. C., April 5, 1889. Six months after date I promise to pay to the order of C. A. Nott fourteen hundred dollars, at Jeff. Co. Nat. Bank, Watertown, N. Y., value received, with interest at 7 per cent. per annum until paid. S. G. NOTT.’ The defense was usury, in that the interest was at the rate of 7 per cent. At the close of the evidence, defendants moved that a verdict be directed in their favor. This motion was denied, and defendants excepted. Thereupon the motion of plaintiff for a verdict in his favor was granted. The defendants did not ask to go to the jury on any question of fact. From the judgment entered in favor of plaintiff, the defendant Copley A. Nott appealed to the general term, and on affirmance of the judgment he again appeals. Affirmed.

CONFLICT OF LAWS-RATE OF INTEREST.

Pursuant to an arrangement made in Washington, D. D., between plaintiff, a resident of that city, and defendant, a citizen of New York, for the renewal of a note payable in Washington for a loan made by plaintiff to defendant, and bearing interest at 7 per cent, a new note bearing the same rate of interest was executed in New York by defendant, payable at a bank in that state to the order of a party also a resident of New York, who indorsed and mailed the note to plaintiff, whereupon plaintiff delivered up the old note. Held, that the question of usury was to be determined according to the law at Washington. 11 N. Y. Supp. 924, affirmed.M. M. Waters

, for appellants.

John C. McCartin, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The promissory note in suit bears date at Washington, D. C., April 5, 1889, was made payable at a bank in Watertown, N. Y., and carried interest at the rate of 7 per cent. per annum. The appellant was indorser upon it, and defends on the ground of usury. If the contract of the parties which is evidenced by this note was governed by the laws of this state, the defense should have prevailed; but if made under the laws of the District of Columbia the judgment was right, and should be sustained. The note was given in renewal of a balance due upon a prior note made by and between the same parties, which bore date at Washington, D. D., April 5, 1888, was payable one year after date at a bank in Washington, bore the same rate of interest, and was similarly indorsed. Some payments were made on account of the principal, but before its maturity the marker requested plaintiff, a resident of Washington, by letter, to renew for the balance remaining due. Failing to receive any reply, he went on to Washington, and there prevailed upon the plaintiff to agree to take a new note for his debt. This note was then drawn by the plaintiff and handed to the maker for execution, who took it back to his home in Syracuse, N. Y., where his and the appellant's signatures were affixed as maker and indorser, respectively. It had been agreed with the plaintiff that, upon this new note being returned to him, he would send back the original note, and the appellant himself mailed the renewal note to the plaintiff in Washington. These facts, which were not disputed, should make it perfectly obvious that there was here every...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • George v. Oscar Smith & Sons Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • 18 Marzo 1918
    ... ... the other decisive circumstances which make Illinois the ... place of contract.' ... Staples ... v. Nott, 128 N.Y. 403, 28 N.E. 515, 26 Am.St.Rep. 480: ... The note was dated at Washington, made payable at a bank in ... New York, bearing ... ...
  • State ex rel. Squire v. Eubank
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 7 Octubre 1940
    ...Bank v. Sayles, 184 Mass. 520, 69 N.E. 309,100 Am.St.Rep. 573; Bell v. Packard, 69 Me. 105, 31 Am.Rep. 251; Staples v. Nott, 128 N.Y. 403, 28 N.E. 515,26 Am.St.Rep. 480;First National Bank v. Shaw, 109 Tenn. 237, 70 S.W. 807,59 L.R.A. 498, 97 Am.St.Rep. 840. Compare Joffe v. Bonn, 3 Cir., 1......
  • Stotesbury v. Huber
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 16 Septiembre 1916
    ...for expenses which were not proven to the satisfaction of the court. Further, the case of Wetzlar v. Wood (reversed in 143 A.D. 311, 128 N.Y.Supp. 501) had decided at Special Term to the extent of upholding a purchase of an interest in an estate. The basis of the decision at Special Term wa......
  • Bombolaski v. First National Bank of Newton, Illinois
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • 16 Mayo 1913
    ... ... line with the current of decisions on this point ... Garrigue v. Kellar, supra ; ... Staples v. Nott (1891), 128 N.Y. 403, 28 ... N.E. 515, 26 Am. St. 480. In the case first cited, the ... question presented related to the capacity of a ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT