Campbell v. Connable
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
O’GORMAN, J.
This action is brought to recover usurious interest paid by plaintiff to the defendant, and at the close of the plaintiff’s case the complaint was dismissed, on the ground, as stated by the learned justice, that it appeared from certain exhibits in the case that the transactions were not loans, but purchases and assignments of salary to become due. But these exhibits did not conclude the plaintiff, and the circumstance that a contract is in writing does not exclude parol evidence that the written instrument is but a cloak for a usurious transaction. Knickerbocker Life v. Nelson, 78 N. Y. 149 . Plaintiff testified to usurious exactions, which, undisputed, would support a judgment in his favor. The dismissal was improper.
Judgment reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
All concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.