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.
John Mosher, Respondent, v. Charles M. Randall, Executor, etc., Appellant, 1873 — 52 N.Y. 649 · caselaw · US
General
John Mosher, Respondent, v. Charles M. Randall, Executor, etc., Appellant
52 N.Y. 649·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
John Mosher, Respondent, v. Charles M. Randall, Executor, etc., Appellant.
(Argued February 28, 1873;
decided April 17, 1873.)
This was an action upon a promissory note of $4,000, made payable in New York, indorsed by defendant’s intestate and discounted by plaintiff for the maker. The defence was usury. The proceeds were paid by draft on New York, less the current rate of exchange. Plaintiff had agreed to give the maker a line of discount to the amount of the note, and it was discounted under the arrangement. The proceeds of paper subsequently discounted were paid in like drafts upon which exchange was charged, but the referee found that this was not a device for obtaining more than legal interest, and gave judgment for plaintiff. Held, no error, upon authority of Marvine v. Hymers (12 N. Y., 223).
Henry E. Selden for the appellant.
Henry Heelcer for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Grover, J.,]
Grover, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur, except Allen, J., not voting. Judgment affirmed.