Case ID: nj-eq_24/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "The Vice-Chancellor.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Beatty vs. Van Brenner and others.
    1. A denial “ that the principal sum mentioned, with large arrears of interest, or any interest whatever, is due and owing to the complainant,’’ and an averment “ that a large portion of said principal sum, to wit, the sum of $500, was exacted of the said V. by the complainant, in excess of interest allowed by law, for the loan of the remaining $5000 to the said V. and that, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to receive the said sum of $500, or any interest upon tlie balance of the said principal sum,” is-not sufficient to support the defence of usury.
    2. To support such defence, the usurious contract must be alleged,, and the facts or circumstances must appear, from which the court can determine the fact of usury.
    
      Mr. Evans and Mr. Eixon, for complainant.
    
      Mr. Hilton, for defendant.
   The Vice-Chancellor.

A sufficient reason why the defence of usury set up in this foreclosure suit cannot prevail is, that the defence is not sufficiently averred. The defendant, in his answer, denies that the principal sum mentioned with large arrears of interest,, or any interest whatever, is due and owing to the complainant; and says, that a large portion of said principal sum, to wit, the sum of $500, was exacted of the said Van Brenner by the complainant, in excess of interest allowed by law, for the loan of the remaining $5000 to the said Van Brenner, and that, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to receive the said sum of $500, or any interest upon the balance of' the said principal sum.”

No contract for the loan of money at a usurious rate, is here alleged. It does not appear when or how the $500 was exacted, or what the particulars of the transaction were. A conclusion is alleged, but no facts or circumstances are-shown from which it can be seen by the court whether the conclusion is correct.

The rule of pleading in such, cases is well settled, and has often been enforced in this court. Taylor v. Morris, 7 C. E. Green 612; Turrell v. Byard, ante p. 135.

It appears from the evidence, that $5000 was the principal sum advanced, and I think no satisfactory or conclusive proof appears, that any usurious contract was in Tact made, even if such contract had been fully alleged. The complainant is entitled to a decree for the above principal, with interest and costs.