Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Charles Emmons, Respondent, v. Harvey Barnes, Appellant, 1873 — 55 N.Y. 643 · caselaw · US
General
Charles Emmons, Respondent, v. Harvey Barnes, Appellant
55 N.Y. 643·New York Court of Appeals·1873·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Charles Emmons, Respondent, v. Harvey Barnes, Appellant.
(Argued November 19, 1873;
decided November 25, 1873.)
This was an action upon a promissory note, the defence, usury.
The note was negotiated by one Smith, in whose hands it had been placed by defendant. Smith delivered it to one Appleby, receiving, in part payment, the relinquishment of an indebtedness of the former to the latter, the balance to be paid in money. Appleby offered to pay the balance then, but Smith stated he preferred to draw it in small sums, as he wanted it; on the 3d of February, 1871, the alleged usurious agreement was made. Meld, that by the agreement under which Appleby received the note, he became liable to pay Smith the full balance; the transaction was valid and complete, and the rights of each party fixed and enforceable; and that the same could not be vitiated by a- subsequent usurious agreement.
W. B. Marling for the appellant.
Thomas B. Odell for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Folger, J.,]
Folger, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.