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.
Corporations
Mary B. Lowry, Respondent, v. Collateral Loan Association, Appellant
172 N.Y. 633·New York Court of Appeals·1902·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
Mary B. Lowry, Respondent, v. Collateral Loan Association, Appellant.
Lowry v. Collateral Loan Association, 62 App. Div. 617, affirmed.
(Argued October 24, 1902;
decided November 11, 1902.)
Appeal from a judgment entered July 18, 1901, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department affirming an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint.
James C. de La Mare for appellant.
Henry Q. K. Heath for respondent.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
This appeal presents the same questions, arising in the same way and argued at the same time as the case of John Lowry against this defendant. (172 N.Y. 394.) The complaint in each action made out a clear case for relief on the ground of usury, unless the general statute against taking interest at a rate greater than is allowed by law is repealed by implication as to corporations organized under chapter 326 of the Laws of 1895. We apply the principle of that case to the one now before us and affirm the judgment, with costs, on our opinion in the other action.
Paekeb, Oh. J., G-bay, O’Bbien, Baetlett, Haight, Martin and Vann, JJ., concur.
Judgment affirmed.