From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

FIRST NAT. BANK v. AM. NEAR E. BLACK SEA LINE, INC

Supreme Court, Kings Special Term
Dec 1, 1922
119 Misc. 650 (N.Y. Misc. 1922)

Opinion

December, 1922.

Louis C. Wills, for plaintiffs.

Archibald Palmer, for defendants.


The answer alleges that it was agreed between Samuel Clark Williams and the defendants that the corporation appear as maker and the individual defendants as indorsers; that, in fact, no money was loaned to the corporation, but the loan was to the individual defendants, and that it was all pursuant to a plan to evade the usury statute, because the maker, being a corporation, would be unable, by reason of the statute, to avail itself of the defense of usury.

The law is that if there is notice of an intent to take usury the lender cannot evade the statute by disguising the borrower. Grannis v. Stevens, 216 N.Y. 583; Schanz v. Sotscheck, 167 A.D. 202; Gilbert v. Real Estate Co. of Brooklyn, 155 id. 411.

The motion for judgment is denied.

Ordered accordingly.


Summaries of

FIRST NAT. BANK v. AM. NEAR E. BLACK SEA LINE, INC

Supreme Court, Kings Special Term
Dec 1, 1922
119 Misc. 650 (N.Y. Misc. 1922)
Case details for

FIRST NAT. BANK v. AM. NEAR E. BLACK SEA LINE, INC

Case Details

Full title:FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BROOKLYN and Another, Plaintiffs, v . AMERICAN NEAR…

Court:Supreme Court, Kings Special Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1922

Citations

119 Misc. 650 (N.Y. Misc. 1922)
197 N.Y.S. 856

Citing Cases

North River M. Corp. v. 254 Sixth Ave. Realty

Waiving the generality of the terms and allegations in construing the defense literally in favor of…

Gelber v. Kugel's Tavern, Inc.

R.S. 31:1-6 provides that "No corporation shall plead or set up the defense of usury to any action or suit…