In Byrnes v. Labagh, 4 N.Y. St. Rep. 522, relied on by the defendants, the usury statute of New Jersey which enables the lender to recover the value actually lost although the agreement was usurious was involved.
Summary of this case from Hopkins v. FlowerArgued June 22, 1887
Decided July 1, 1887
William Pierrepont Williams for appellants.
John Henry Hull for respondent.
Agree to affirm; no opinion.
All concur.
Order affirmed.
In Byrnes v. Labagh, 4 N.Y. St. Rep. 522, relied on by the defendants, the usury statute of New Jersey which enables the lender to recover the value actually lost although the agreement was usurious was involved.
Summary of this case from Hopkins v. FlowerFull title:FRANCES J. BYRNES, Respondent, v . MARIA L. LABAGH et al., MATTHIAS PLUM…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Jul 1, 1887
New York decisions and dicta which have some tendency to support the result reached by the lower court: In…
Harrington v. First Natl. Bank of DalhartThe appellees as joint conspirators are jointly and severally liable for all of the debts and obligations of…