Case Name: ERNST OESER & CO. v. BEHREND et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1915-03-04
Citations: 151 N.Y.S. 873
Docket Number: 
Parties: ERNST OESER & CO. v. BEHREND et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 151
Pages: 873–875

Head Matter:
ERNST OESER & CO. v. BEHREND et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
March 4, 1915.)
Bills and Notes (§ 376 ) — Bona Eide Holders — Defenses—Usury.
Under Negotiable Instruments Law (Laws 1897, c. 612; Consol. Laws, c. 38) §■ 96, providing that a holder in due course holds the instrument free from any defect of title of prior parties, and from defenses available to prior parties among themselves, and may enforce payment against all parties liable thereon, the defense of usury cannot be urged against a bona fide holder for value in due course and before maturity.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 982-984; Dec. Dig. § 376.*]
Pendleton, J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Trial Term.
Action by Ernst Oeser & Co. against Gerhard J. Behrend and another. From a judgment entered on a verdict directed for plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued February term, 1915, before GUY, PENDLETON, and SHEARN, JJ.
Cohen Bros., of New York City (Lawrence B. Cohen and Sumner L. Samuels, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.
William J. Miller, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
SHEARN, J.
In an action on a promissory note, brought by a bona fide holder in due course for value before maturity, the defendants, the makers of the note, plead usury. It has been twice held by this court that the defense of usury is not available in such a case, under section 96 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (chapter 612, Laws 1897). Klar v. Kostiuk, 65 Misc. Rep. 199, 119 N. Y. Supp. 683; Emanuel v. Misicki, 149 N. Y. Supp. 905. See, also, Crusins v. Siegman, 81 Misc. Rep. 367, 142 N. Y. Supp. 348. It is especially important that in a court, constituted as is the Appellate Term, of justices changing from month to month, there should be continuity of decisions. Aside, therefore, from the merits of thé legal question presented, regard for repeated decisions of this court requires the affirmance of the judgment below, holding the defense unavailable.
Under these circumstances, and as this case will doubtless go to the Court of Appeals, no purpose would be served by extending this opinion. I desire to say, however, that I do not agree that this decision practically writes the inhibition against usury from the statutes, but rather with Mr. Justice Laughlin, in Schlesinger v. Kelly, 114 App. Div. 546, 99 N. Y. Supp. 1083, when he said:
"The usury laws remain in full force, but to facilitate the free circulation of negotiable paper by protecting holders thereof in due course for value in their right to enforce the same, the usury laws are to that extent superseded by the provisions of section 98 of the Negotiable Instruments Law."
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
GUY, J., concurs.