Case ID: ny_221/html/0702-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

London Finance Company, Appellant, v. John L. Shattuck, Respondent.
    (Argued October 17, 1917;
    decided November 13, 1917.)
    
      London Finance Co. v. Shattuck, 166 App. Div. 922, affirmed.
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 2, 1915, which affirmed an order of Special Term vacating and setting aside a judgment. by confession and an execution issued thereon, and declaring null and void all proceedings under the said judgment. The plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Massachusetts. The respondent is an employee of the police department of the city of New York and a resident of the borough of Manhattan. On March 3, 1914, at the office of the Star Finance Company, 39 West Thirty-fourth street, city of New York, defendant signed three papers, (1) an application for a loan of twenty-five dollars, addressed to the London Finance Company, 43 Tremont street, Boston, Mass.; (2) a note of the same date for twenty-seven dollars and fifty cents, bearing interest at the rate of three per cent per month, and (3) a confession of judgment. A few days subsequent to March 3, 1914, defendant received a check mailed from the city of Boston by the London Finance Company, which defendant cashed in the city of New York. No portion thereof was repaid. On or about the 11th day of August, 1914, judgment by confession was entered by the London Finance Company in the Supreme Court of Onondaga county for the sum of forty-three dollars and seventy cents; a transcript of said judgment was filed with the clerk of the county of New York and execution thereunder was issued against the defendant’s salary. The Special Term set forth as its reason for vacating the judgment that it was apparent the contract was made in the state of New York and that the claim that it had been made in the state of Massachusetts was a mere subterfuge for the purpose of evading the usury laws of the state of New York.
    
      Lionel L. P. Kristeller and Simon S. Hamburger for appellant.
    
      John T. S. Wade and Leonard McGee for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Pound and Andrews, JJ. Taking no part: Cardozo, J.