Case Name: Eliza W. White et al., Pl'ffs, v. Edward M. Benjamin, Def't
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1892-04-11
Citations: 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 25
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eliza W. White et al., Pl’ffs, v. Edward M. Benjamin, Def’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 46
Pages: 25–26

Head Matter:
Eliza W. White et al., Pl’ffs, v. Edward M. Benjamin, Def’t.
(New York Superior Court, General Term,
Filed April 11, 1892.)
Usury—Bills and notes.
The note in suit was given in renewal ofone for a similar amount dated January 1, 1884, which was given in renewal for a similar one dated January 1, 1883, which was not connected by evidence with any preceding loan or note. It appeared that a note for a similar amount had been given January 1, 1881, payable in eighteen months. Held, that usury which preceded the last mentioned note was not connected with the note in suit so as to taint it with such usury.
Exceptions of defendant ordered heard in the first instance at general term, after verdict for plaintiffs.
Whitlock & Simonds, for pl’ft's; Smith & Dougherty, for def’t.

Opinion:
Dugro, J.
This action is upon a note for one hundred thousand ($100,000) dollars, dated January 1, 1885, payable in eighteen (18) months. The defense is usury. The exceptions were ordered to be heard in the first instance at general term.
It seems that the note made the basis of this action was given upon the surrender of one for a similar amount, dated January 1, 1884; and that the latter was given for one of a similar amount, dated January 1, 1883.
The last note is not connected by the evidence with any preceding loan or note.
It appears that on January 1, 1881, a note of one hundred thousand ($100,000) dollars, payable in eighteen months, was delivered by the defendant to the plaintiffs. This note is not sufficiently connected with the note in suit to warrant its consideration, or that of the loans which are alleged to have preceded it. The usury, therefore, which is alleged to have tainted the loans which preceded the note last mentioned is not connected by the evidence with the note in suit.
A question still remains with respect to the checks which were offered in evidence, and which were claimed to represent payments of twenty per cent, of the profits of the defendant's business. It may be said that the evidence does not warrant a finding that they were the result of a usurious agreement.
The exceptions to rulings upon the admissibility of evidence have been carefully examined, and none of value found.
The motion for a new trial upon the exceptions must be denied, and judgment ordered for the plaintiff upon the verdict.
Sedgwick, Ch. J., and Gildersleeve, J., concur.