The New York herald., 1879-07-01
"fiRASPING uSuRYo

decision rendered yesterday by Judge Bar
ret in the foreclosure suit Of the Union Dime Saw
ings Institution against Thomas l.. Sanford and
others tried before him several weeks ago in Su-
prerne Court. Special Term. mortgage was fore
closed by Mr.. Rowe upon the property in Madison
venue near Sixty-third street. belonging to San
1rd. At the latter's request the property at the
fo-rlosure sale was bid in by Mr. Watson, and
as>Mr. Sanford wanted money to pay the bid he
applied through Edward Clapp to the Union Dime
Savings Institution for loan. Watson assigned
the bid TO Francis j. Clark, brother.in-aw of Mr..
ciapi On the 10Th of May. 1874. the referee in the
Rowe ioreclosure executed deed to Clark. and
4uitclaim deed of the premises was given at the
same me by Sanford. This done, Sanford
claims, ecause. condition of making the loan,
the required that the title should first be put
i, the me of Clark; that Clark should execute
mortgas to Clapp. and that Clapp should then as
sign ~ roank the mortgage, 80 that 1t could make
the j. IA ut drous interest. Clark had interest
the matter, but ut Clapp's request, he being
romisnd- $1,000 for his trouble, took the
aeed and executed the bond and MORTGAGE.
fhe object to take the title in unmarried man
willing to assume the responsibility OF the bond and
nortgages. The negotiation with the bank for tho
.noney wa after the bid by Watson and before the
assignment to Clark. 1t was agreed by the bank to
advance the money for bonus OF seven per cent
he legal rate After the delivery of the bonds and
mortgages by Clark to Clapp and the assignment by
Clark to the bank, which was done at the time
part of the money was advanced by the bank
the bonus and the amount paid to the referee.
quitclam deed had been received by Clark from
Sanford. and the same day deed OF
the premises was given by Clark to sanford
subject to the mortgage. AS the houses which Mr..
Sanford building the premises advanced
toward completion further payments were made by
the bank. In some instances seventeen per cent
bonuses were deducted. In the present foreclosure
suit upon this mortgage no defence was made by
Clark and Clapp. The defence of usury however,
set up by Sanford. also by Wilmot and Koch. who
had mechanics liens upon the property In his decl-
sion Judge Barrett says that "a of more grasp
ing usury is rarely brought to the attention of the
Court;" that the transaction clearly in the
nature OF builders loan; that what
Clark gave to Capp was not purchase
money, but securities issued to raise the means of
paying the purchase money. that the rights ot San
ford though he had always been in possession, de-
pended upon his title. which title was cut of
by the Rowe foreclosure: that since then he has
acquired no interest except by the deed from Clark
and that his private understanding with Watson
could not avail him. He holds further that the diff
Guilty is that Clark's deed conveyed nothing but
equity OF redemption, as IL subject to the mort
CAGES that tho rule under such circumstances is
that the grantee cannot question the validity OF
the usurer's mortgage, that the bank is
responsible for the actual transaction; that
while neither Clark nor Clapp defended Sanford Is
without legal privity; that such difficulty arises
Wilnot and KOCH that 1t is we'll settled that the
second mortgage may set up usuryin the hrst mort
gage, and that the rights of the ienors, there
fore, not barred by the present Judgment. A
judgment is given by Judge Barrett for the plaintiff
against Sanford. but hc disnisses the complaint
against Willnot and Koch. There three
mortgages in ali, two which have been torecoscd.
In those actions the same usury was attempted to
evidence offered excluded and the defence ruled
q II.