Court Opinion

ID: 6120827
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-02-04 18:44:37.711657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:23:14.439186
License: Public Domain

BarnaRd, P. J.:
This is purely an equitable action. The complaint is for the foreclosure of certain mortgages accompanied by a demand for judgment for deficiency, if any should result, against the person who executed the bonds.
The answer sets up as a defense usury, and that the bonds and mortgages were procured by fraud. It was never a matter of right that issues should be framed and sent to a jury in equitable actions. It always rested in the discretion of the court either to ask the aid of a jury to inform the conscience of the court, or to decide the case without such aid.
There is nothing in the present case calling for a reversal of the order at Special Term refusing to frame issues to be tried at law. Whether or not usury is proven to have entered into the contract, or whether or not the mortgages were procured by false and fraudulent representations, are questions which equity judges are peculiarly fitted to determine’ by reason of the large experience which they have derived from trials in which such defenses are set up. I consider the finding of an intelligent and impartial court upon questions like these more to be relied on than the verdict of a jury thereon.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Gilbert, J., concurred. DyKMAn, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed with costs and disbursements.