Case Name: MAYER against LOUIS
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1872-01
Citations: 12 Abb. Pr. 5
Docket Number: 
Parties: MAYER against LOUIS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Abbott's Practice Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 5–6

Head Matter:
MAYER against LOUIS.
Supreme Court, First District; Special Term,
Demurrer.—Insufficiency of Defense.—Laws of Foreign State.
Where the defense sets up that the contract sued on is usurious according to the laws of a foreign State, the answer must show that the contract was governed by the law of such foreign State.
Demurrer to answer.
Elias Mayer sued Adolph Louis and Henry Rosenheim, in the Xéw York supreme court. The complaint charged the defendants as partners, and was founded on two certificates of deposit. These certificates were set out. They were signed A. Louis & Co. (the alleged partnership name of defendant), and acknowledged the receipt of money from the plaintiff, “payable with interest at the rate of eight per cent, per annum until paid.” These certificates were dated at Cincinnati. The defendant Rosenheim answered, denying the material allegations of the complaint, and setting up as a separate and distinct defense, as follows:
“That said alleged instruments were made and said sums therein deposited upon the corrupt, unlawful and usurious agreement between said plaintiff and said defendant Adolph Louis (who is the son-in-law of said plaintiff), in the name of defendant’s firm, that the defendants should pay the plaintiff for the loan of said sums of money, a greater sum than at the rate of six per cent, per annum as interest thereon, to wit, at the rate of eight per cent, per annum, contrary to the laws and statutes of the State of Ohio, in such case made and provided.”
To the separate defense the plaintiff demurred, as not stating facts sufficient to constitute a defense.
Adolph L. Sanger, for plaintiff,
in support of demurrer, cited section 246 of the Code, and the Laws of Ohio, by which parties may. agree in writing for any rate of interest not exceeding ten per cent, per annum.
George T. Langbein, for defendant, opposed.

Opinion:
Ingraham, J.
The defense demurred to is bad, because it does not show that the contract was governed by the laws of Ohio, or made to be performed in that State.
• By section 326 of the Code, the laws of a foreign State may be read from the published volume of the laws. The law cited by the plaintiff shows that the rate of interest charged is allowed by that State.
Judgment for plaintiff, on demurrer.