Case Name: Sizer, vs. Miller, and others
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1841-05
Citations: 1 Hill & Den. 227
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sizer, vs. Miller, and others.
Judges: 
Reporter: Hill's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 227–234

Head Matter:
Sizer, vs. Miller, and others.
M., having a large debt against one who had assigned his estate in trust for creditors, applied to the assignees for a loan of $13,000 from the trust fund, until a dividend should be made; whereupon the latter let him have notes belonging to the estate, which, estimating them at their nominal value, amounted to $8354,69, besides cash to the amount of $3745,31, and took therefor M.’s note for $13,000 with interest. Held, that though there was evidence tending to show the notes which M. received to have been worth at the time considerably less than he allowed for them, the transaction was not necessarily usurious, but depended upon the intent with which the loan was made.
Held further, that a report of referees stating that they had examined the evidence, and were of opinion as matter of law that the transaction was usurious, implied that they had not passed upon the question as one of intent, and was therefore erroneous.
Cowen, J. dissented, holding that the report did not necessarily imply this, but was equivocal; and there being evidence from which it might be sustained as a general report in favor of the defendants, the court ought not to interfere.
Semble, it .is not admissible, in such cases, by way of rebutting the usurious intent, to enquire of the party who made the loan whether there was any intention, shift or device, on his part, to get more than seven per cent, &c; for that is calling on him to pronounce broadly upon the veiy point in dispute. Per Cowen, J.
Motion to set aside the report of referees. The action was assumpsit on a note dated February 10th, 1837, made by the defendant James Miller and his sureties, whereby they jointly and severally promised to pay to the order of Hiram Pratt, Lewis F. Allen and Joseph Clary, assignees of B. Rathbun, the sum of §12,000, at the Bank of Buffalo, twelve months after date. The note was duly endorsed to the plaintiff. The defence interposed was that the note was usurious and void. After issue joined, the cause was referred to referees; - and on the hearing before the latter, the case was as follows:
Rathbun became insolvent, and appointed the payees in the note his assignees, who subsequently sold his property and took a large amount of security in notes for the purchase money, and collected some cash. On the 4th of February, 1837, the defendant Miller, being one of Rathbun’s creditors, addressed a letter to the assignees, stating, that it would be inconvenient for him to lay out of the use of what was due ■ him till the estate was settled, and believing them anxious to do all in their power to relieve the creditors, he was induced to ask them to loan him a small portion of the funds belonging to the estate, until they should be needed for distribution, on his giving satisfactory security to refund the whole, or such part as he might have over and above his dividend of the estate. He specified his claim against Rathbun at §36,000, and the amount he wished to loan at §12,000; adding, that he asked the favor under a consciousness that the creditors were entitled to the use of the fund in preference to others.
Clary, one of the assignees, testified on the part of the defendants, that when the letter was received, the assignees had not the amount of money requested, and that he so informed Miller; but offered him cash and notes on hand, if Miller would give good security; that the cash offered by the assignees was between three and four thousand dollars. Witness made a" list of the notes and gave it to Miller. There were upwards of thirty of them in all, ranging in amount from less than $40 to $800. Most of them were on interest; and the whole, including interest,' amounted to $8254,69, which, together with the cash offered, ($3745,31,) amounted to $12,000. Miller accepted the offer, and procured and gave the note in question for the loan. Clary further stated, that the estate alone was interested in the transaction, and that the business was conducted without reference to his own interest. He supposed the notes Collectable. Many of them were due. He was of opinion that they would not have sold in market for their face. He made the advance because Miller was a large' creditor, and witness would not have done it had such not been the fact. He and Miller both supposed the funds would be realized from." the notes, sooner than from the dividends of the estate^ He turned out exactly $12,000, because that was the sum Miller wanted. The notes consisted of such as had been taken by the assignees on selling the effects of the estate,' but they had somewhat depreciated in value. The witness denied that he made the taking of the notes a condition of Miller’s" having the money.
In the course of Clary’s cross-examination by the plaintiff’s Counsel, the latter asked the witness if there was any intention, shift or device on his part in the transaction, to get or realize more than seven per cent, from Miller. The question was objected to by the defendant’s counsel, and the objection sustained.
Further evidence was given tending to show, that the notes were worth considerable less than their face, at the time of the loan; some of them being in fact quite doubtful of collection.
A majority of the referees reported that there was nothing due the plaintiffs; and being called on for a special report, after setting forth thé proceedings, they added—“ Whereupon the undersigned having considered thé foregoing testimony, &c. were of opinion, as matter of law, that the said noie was void' for usury, and thereupon reported that there was nothing due thé plaintiff.”
The plaintiff’s counsel now moved to set aside the report.
(S. Beardsley, for the plaintiff.
(S. Stevens, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The case states the special grounds on which the two referees proceeded who agreed in making the report. They have not found any intention in the trustees of Rathbun to take usury, or that there was any shift or device to evade the statute. Indeed, they have not drawn any conclusion of fact from the evidence, but say they are of opinion, " as mat- ' ter of law, that the note was void for usury." In this we think they erred. The evidence does not necessarily and as a matter of law make out the fact of usury, and there must consequently be a rehearing.