Howardv.Kirkpatrick

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third DepartmentNov 26, 1941
263 App. Div. 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 1941)

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Kaiser v. Meinzer

    …Moreover, even if New York law is applicable and the promissory note is usurious, the defense of usury may be…

  • Feldman v. Torres

    …The long-standing rule in New York is that civil usury is a waivable defense ( see Billington v. Wagoner, 33…

lock 4 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

November 26, 1941.

Present — Hill, P.J., Bliss, Heffernan, Schenck and Foster, JJ.


This action is brought for the foreclosure of four certain mortgages given by the defendant DeVeber Kirkpatrick to plaintiff Michael Howard. Subsequent to the making of these mortgages the real property was transferred by Kirkpatrick to defendant Gertrude S. Chappell by deed which conveyed the said property subject to the said four mortgages. In April, 1941, the defendant Gertrude S. Chappell conveyed the property to one Eileen E. Fleming by deed which recited that the premises were conveyed subject to the four mortgages heretofore referred to. Thereafter, in May, 1941, Eileen E. Fleming transferred the property back to Gertrude S. Chappell by deed which recited that such conveyance was made subject to mortgages held by Howard. No part of the principal was paid on these mortgages after the property was taken over by Gertrude S. Chappell. In this action for foreclosure of the said mortgages Gertrude S. Chappell served an answer setting up the defense of usury as to one of the four mortgages. On motion, the court struck out defendant Chappell's answer and granted summary judgment. It is from such order that this appeal is taken. The court held that the defense of usury is personal and may be waived by the borrower and that a conveyance subject to usurious mortgage constitutes such waiver. The property having been conveyed subject to these mortgages, the judgment and order must be affirmed. Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.


An alternative to Lexis that does not break the bank.

Casetext does more than Lexis for less than $65 per month.