The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-04-25
THE COURTS.

on the question OF usury In connection with neso-
table paper Judge wcstbrook has rendered an I'M
nor,ant decision Edward X Dickson sued William
Y Edwards to recover promissory note Tor $500
The motto was made by Edwards payable 10 the order OF
Bailey and Gilbert, dated at New York and payable nj
the same place Tho defence was that the note was
pure accommodation one made by Edwards and loaned
10 Bailey and Gilbert who procured It 10 be discounted
by the plaintiff greater rate OF interest than seven
per cent and that IL therefore void for usury Tho
reply OF tho plaintiff this that the note was not
pure accommodation note, but that Bailey and Gilbert
gave their note Tor amount to tho defendant
In exchange therefor II was conceded that the note
negotiated TO tho plaintiff by Bailey and Gilbert,
the payers thereof in the State OF Massachusetts, and
that received thereon was no greater than
that allowed by the laws OF that State. though
more than allowed by tho laws OF New York. On
the trial tho jury we're charged that II the note
IN SUIT was gwen by the defendant TO Bailey ana
Gilbert IN exchange Tor their no.o of like amount
their verdict should be In favor OF the plaintiff Tor the
sum due thereon. II, on the other hand, they should
ind that the note pure and simple accomnoda-
ton one made by defendant for the benefit Of Bailey
Gilbert loaned TO them that their verdict should
be for the defendant The jury having found Tor the
defendant the plainin moved Tor new tria because
the charge ne claims erroneous IN holding that
accommodation note dated IN New YORK ana pay
able IN that State, and negotiated LOT the hrst Tune ~
be declared void usury the rate OF interest
thus taken was greater than tuat M ai,owea
by the State of New York. Judge Westbrook
has now rendered a decision on that application
and awards 10 the plaintiff new trial. In his opnion
lie says''fhe direction given 10 the charge was paseu
uoon the decision in the case Jewell Wright go
New York, 25y which o!ds-When promssory
note made and dated in this state and payable at a
bank here is negotiated in another State the laws OF
New York are TO control as TO the defence OF usury
AS the enuncaiins this doctrine was decision py
our highest State Court though the extent OF the
decision rendered unnecessary by the statement
in the beginning OF tho opinion Of the learned Judge
VINO spoke Tor the Court that confessedy lhe note on
when the suit brought negotiated at rate OF
interest illegal, both in Connections and New York.
!, was WISE follow 1t at the Circuit that the
question oil fact which the involved might
be disposed OF, and then have the cause decided
upon the pure legal question involved" To ths
doctrine case, although reairmcd by the same
Judge flngraham IN the OF Hilureth VS.. Shepard
165 iiarpocr 265.2e7 Judge Westb ook is unable 10
subscribe zine fundamental oil that case" he
says us In tho assumption that in case IKE the
present the note or contract is mado here The FORM
Of the obligation may be written here, but "
only becomes contract upon Ills delivery, and
is made when and where 1t is delivered. and u
may have agreement drawn between them In this
state they may sign their To II here but IT
yet become complete contract until DENY
cred H. then, they carry away with them the paper
and dcliver elsewhere the place Of delivery Is the
place OF contract" Tho same rule, hc maintains,
holds good in relation to promissory notes. ana inc
note this having been borrowed. 10 be nego-
tiaed by the borrower when ana whcre ne
pleased, 1t only became valid contract when me-
gotiatcd This note having been Tor the hrs time ne
goaed in Massachusetts there the maker oil IL ior the
first tmc contracted by making wand promise to
pay ana BY the laws OF that state the contract must
be governed, and by the laws OF the State OF New
York, where The merely written. To sustain
Tins position the Judge quotes decisions oil the Supreme
Court OF United States reported IN the first and
twenty of Wallace, and says that as the plaintn
is a ciiizen OF Massachusetts seeking 10 en-
force made that state IN our courts, II IS
very proper the final disposition OF the cause art-
Gle g. soc. = cons u. that tho Supreme Court OF
should be followed rather than that OF the
highest tribunal OF State AS the note IN SUIT
negotiated at rate OF interest under
the laws OF Massachusetts where the Judge now holds
IT, for the foregolng reasons TO have been negotiated
he awards the plaintiff new trial.