Summary
In Hall v. Eagle Ins. Co. 151 App. Div. (N.Y.) 815, 826, affirmed without opinion in 211 N.Y. 507, the court said: "It was early recognized by the courts that if the form of the contract were to be controlling, the statute against usury would be substantially unenforcible, and thus it was made the duty of the court in each case presented to examine into the substance of the transaction between the parties and determine whether the intent which pervaded it was one which violated the statute."
Summary of this case from Hopkins v. FlowerOpinion
Argued March 24, 1914
Decided April 14, 1914
Alfred G. Reeves and Alexander S. Rowland for plaintiff, respondent and appellant.
Edward Bruce Hill for defendant, appellant and respondent.
Judgment affirmed, without costs in this court to either party; no opinion.
Concur: WILLARD BARTLETT, Ch. J., WERNER, HISCOCK, COLLIN, CUDDEBACK, HOGAN and CARDOZO, JJ.