TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

President & Directors of the Manhattan Co. v. Rudner

President and Directors of the Manhattan Company, as of William W. Spiro v. Nelson Rudner

President & Directors of the Manhattan Co. v. Rudner, 280 A.D. 982 (1952)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
November 3, 1952
Citations
280 A.D. 982116 N.Y.S.2d 3911952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4482

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In this action to recover the face amount of a demand promissory note in the amount of $5,000, dated November 23, 1946, which was interest-bearing at the rate of 6%, the defense was usury. Judgment in favor of plaintiff for the principal amount of $4,277.89, with interest thereon from August 3, 1947, together with costs, modified on the law and the facts so as to provide for an award of $4,203.14, on account of principal, and computation of interest from August 4, 1947, together with costs. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. Applying the first payment which defendant made in the amount of $750, on June 3, 1947, to interest and principal and the second payment in the amount of $250, by cheek dated August 4, 1947, against the remaining principal, and interest thereon, we find that the balance due on account of principal as of August 4, 1947, was $4,203.14. Appellant failed to establish that any usurious agreement was made at the inception of the transaction. Payments in excess of the legal rate of interest, if made pursuant to a subsequent demand, agreement or understanding, cannot vitiate the original transaction. {Gam v. Lancaster, 169 N. Y. 357, 365 ; Beal Estate Trust Co. V. Keecli, 69 N. Y. 248 .) Such excess payments must be applied in reduction of the principal and against the lawful interest. Carswell, Acting P. J., Johnston, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur; Schmidt, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint, on the ground that, in his opinion, the proof establishes (a) that the usurious agreement was actually made contemporaneously with the loan or at its inception, and (b) that the excessive payments were made pursuant to such contemporaneous agreement and not pursuant to any subsequent agreement or understanding.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1961: 11964: 11971: 11978: 11984: 11985: 119612026peak 1961 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Carla Leather, Inc.44 B.R. 457 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984)
  2. Kredietbank, N v. v. ESIC Capital Corp. (In re Rosner)48 B.R. 538 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1985)
  3. Bakke v. Buck587 P.2d 575 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978)
  4. Casten v. Tannenbaum42 Misc. 2d 118 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)
  5. Eastern Shopping Centers, Inc. v. Contro68 Misc. 2d 140 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1971)
  6. Goerlich v. Jaffa30 Misc. 2d 563 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)

Most recent

  1. Kredietbank, N v. v. ESIC Capital Corp. (In re Rosner)48 B.R. 538 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1985)
  2. In re Carla Leather, Inc.44 B.R. 457 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984)
  3. Bakke v. Buck587 P.2d 575 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978)
  4. Eastern Shopping Centers, Inc. v. Contro68 Misc. 2d 140 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1971)
  5. Casten v. Tannenbaum42 Misc. 2d 118 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1964)
  6. Goerlich v. Jaffa30 Misc. 2d 563 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1961)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Real Estate Trust Co. v. Keech, 69 N.Y. 248 (1877) 22
Ganz v. Lancaster, 62 N.E. 413 (N.Y. 1902) 16

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list