Case ID: ny_242/html/0508-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William J. Crittenden, Appellant, v. Samuel Barkin, Respondent.
    
      Equity — usury — stolen bonds pledged to defendant to secure usurious loan • — ■ action in equity to have owner of bonds adjudged borrower, the note declared void for usury and bonds returned to plaintiff cannot be maintained — loan may not be attacked by plaintiff for usury — remedy, if any, at law in action of replevin or for conversion.
    
    
      Crittenden v. Barkin, 212 App. Div. 232, affirmed.
    (Argued January 15, 1926;
    decided February 24, 1926.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered April 1, 1925, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion by defendant for judgment on the pleadings and granted said motion. The complaint alleged that plaintiff was the owner of certain bonds which were stolen from him and thereafter pledged to defendant as security for a loan, evidenced by a note, which was usurious nod void for the reason that defendant exacted and received a bonus in addition to the legal rate of interest and demanded that plaintiff be adjudged the borrower within the meaning of section 377 of the General Business Law; that the note be declared usurious and void, under sections 370 and 373 of the General . Business Law; that plaintiff be adjudicated to be the true and lawful owner of said bonds and entitled to the immediate possession thereof, and that the defendant be decreed and compelled to deliver up to the plaintiff the aforesaid bonds or account to him for the value of the same. The Appellate Division held that plaintiff could not attack for usury the transaction between defendant and the pledgor of the bonds and that his rights must be enforced, if at all, in an action at law in replevin or for conversion.
    
      Irving Albert and A. Gordon Murray for appellant.
    
      George 0. Redington and Joseph Schreiber for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Dowling, J., below.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Pou’u, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ. Not voting: CarDOZO, J.