Case Name: NEWMAN et al. v. SIMPSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-06-10
Citations: 54 N.Y.S. 1040
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEWMAN et al. v. SIMPSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 54
Pages: 1040–1040

Head Matter:
(31 App. Div. 628.)
NEWMAN et al. v. SIMPSON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
June 10, 1898.)
1. Usury—Burden of Proof.
A party attacking a transaction as usurious has the burden of proof.
2¡ Same—Presumption.
A transaction attacked as usurious will, if the proofs are evenly balanced, and it be capable of being so construed, be regarded as done with an innocent rather than a corrupt design.
Appeal from special term.
Action by Samuel Newman and others against William Simpson. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeals.
Affirmed.
The following is the opinion of the court below (BEEKMAN, J.):
The burden rested upon the plaintiff of showing by a preponderance of proof that the transaction complained of was corruptly made, with .the intention on the part of the defendant of exacting a larger rate of interest than was permitted by the statute. It was entirely competent for the parties to enter into an arrangement for separate loans upon different articles, and such a transaction is not open to attack on the ground of usury, unless it is made to appear that it was merely colorable and a device to evade the statute. This, I think, the plaintiff has failed to show. Where a transaction may be open to two constructions, the court will prefer the one which imports an innocent purpose, rather than that which bespeaks a guilty one. Upon the whole evidence, as it seems to me, the most favorable view that could be taken for the plaintiff is that the proofs are evenly balanced; but even then there must be judgment against him, because of a lack of preponderance in his favor. Had the two loans been simultaneously made, each on all of the articles pawned, a different case would have been presented. It follows that there must be a judgment for the defendant, dismissing the complaint.
Argued before BARRETT, EUMSEY, McLAUGHLIN, and INGRAHAM, JJ.
A. F. Patrick, for appellants.
W. A. Hoy, for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of BEEKMAN, J., in court below.