The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918. Page: 60
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
250 FEDERAL REPORTER
and thus the payment of the loan made was written, dated, executed, ac-
knowledged, and recorded in Fayette county, Ky."
The court held the notes usurious under the laws of Kentucky, and
refused judgment upon them.
Kellog v. Miller (C. C.) 13 Fed. 198: Though the contract was ne-
gotiated in New York, and the lender a citizen of that state, and the
money there paid, it was held to be a Nebraska contract, because exe-
cuted in that state, and secured by a mortgage on land there, the ob-
ligor being a resident of that state, notwithstanding no place of per-
formance was named.
Rowland v. Bldg. & Loan Ass'n, 115 N. C. 825, 18 S. E. 965: The
obligation for the money was sent to the office of the association in
Richmond, Va., and the money was sent from that place. The borrow-
er, however, was a resident of North Carolina, and made his applica-
tion from that state. The money was paid to him there, he secured the
payment by a mortgage on land situated there, and the mortgage was
executed there. The obligation was held usurious, notwithstanding it
was valid under the laws of Virginia.
Duncan v. Helm, 22 La. Ann. 418: The parties resided in Missis-
sippi, where the negotiations were had. The notes were payable in
Louisiana, and secured by a mortgage on lands there situate. The
actual execution was in Louisiana, and they were there delivered to
the representative of the lender, by whom the money was paid by a
bill on New Orleans. The contract was held to have been intended to
have effect in Louisiana.
Falls v. U. S. Company, 97 Ala. 417, 13 South. 25, 24 L. R. A. 174,
38 Am. St. Rep. 194: The note was payable in Minnesota, and recited
that it was made with reference to the laws of that state. It was se-
cured by a mortgage on land in Alabama, and drew a rate of interest
in excess of that permitted in that state. The obligation was made
through a local agent of the complainant in Alabama, and the money re-
ceived from Minnesota was paid in Alabama. The court held that no
state will enforce contracts or redress grievances entered into or suf-
fered in another state, if the enforcement involve a breach of legal or
moral right as maintained in the law of the forum, and refused to en-
force the contract as to so much of it as was in conflict with the law
Thompson v. Edwards, 85 Ind. 420: The Supreme Court cited and
approved Rorer on Interstate Law, to the effect that a note made in
one state, secured by a mortgage on lands in another, made for money
loaned by a citizen of a third state, and delivered to him in the state
where the contract of loan was agreed to, was held to be legal and en-
forceable in the courts of the state where the land was situate, and
where the debtor resided at the time of making the contract, although
a greater rate of interest was called for than allowed by the law of the
state where the contract was agreed on and the instrument delivered,
although in such latter state a forfeiture of the debt is incurred for
usury; the ruling being that the whole transaction had reference to the
laws of the state where the land was situate, the debtor resided, and the
Here’s what’s next.
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
The Federal Reporter with Key-Number Annotations, Volume 250: Cases Argued and Determined in the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts of the United States, August-October, 1918., legislative document, 1918; Saint Paul, Minnesota. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc38821/m1/75/: accessed April 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.