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.
Wycoff versus Longhead, 1785 — 2 U.S. 92 · caselaw · US
Securities
Wycoff versus Longhead
2 U.S. 922 Dall. 92·Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·1785·PA
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
Wycoff versus Longhead.
This cause was tried on the 26th September, 1785.
[MAJORITY]
THIS was an a action on a promissory note; to which the defendant pleaded the act of Assembly against usury; and thereupon the following points were ruled by the Court, in their charge to the Jury.
1st. That where more than leg I interest was included in any note, bond, or specialty, the whole amount could not be sued for and recovered: But the plaintiff was entitled, in such case, to a verdict for the just principal and lawful interest.
2d. That if a man, directly, or indirectly, actually receives more than fix per cent, he incurs a forfeiture equal to the money &c. lent; but if an action is brought to recover the amount of the loan, a verdict ought not to be given for the defendant, as that would, in effect, be putting the money into his pocket, instead of working a forfeiture to the Commonwealth.
3d. That a man may, bona fide, purchase any security for the payment of money, at the lowest rate he can, without incurring the penalties of usury.