This is nоt the case of a borrower and lender residing in New-Jersey, making a contract for thе loan of money, and going into New-York to еxchange the papers, .arid reserving sеven per cent, interest,.. All the parties tо this contract resided in New-York at th.e time it was made. The bond and mortgage both truly state thе parties, obligor and obligees, and mortgagor and mortgagees, ás of the city of New-York; The papers were executed in New-York, the mortgage is acknowledged in New-York. It is clearly a New-York transaction.
A., residing in New-York, lends B., also residing in New-York, a sum of money, and takes his bond for it payable in one year, at New-York interest, seven per cent. Tо securer the.bond, the borrower gives the lеnder a mortgage on lands in New-Jersey. It would be- a singular application of the lex loci
Another ground relied on by the defendant was, that thе bond and mortgage, though executed, witnessed and acknowledged in New-York, were actually delivered at the clerk’s office in Nеw-Brunswick, New-Jersey, and not in New-York. I do not see that the mere fact of the exchange of the papers in some place out of New-York, deprives it of the charаcter of a New-York contract. But in this cаse, the reason why it was done is manifest. It was done by arrangement between the partiеs, and by the advice of the complainants’ counsel, in order that the complainаnts might be sure that their mortgage found its right place on the record.
As to the rate of interest in New-York, it is sufficiently proved in the case, if it were necessary to prove it. But it was not necessary. The defence is usury by the law of Nеw-Jersey. This defence cannot be madе in relation to a New-York contract.
The defence is overcome by showing that this was a contract not subject to the New-Jеrsey statute. If the contract was usurious in New-York, it was for the defendant to show it, in pleading аnd proof.
The complainants are entitled to the relief sought by their bill. The usual reference -will ba ordered.
Order accordingly.