46 N.J. Eq. 316 | N.J. | 1889
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The decree appealed from is founded upon a bill to foreclose a mortgage given by the appellants to secure a loan made by the insurance company to the appellants. The defence of usury
The advisory master who heard the testimony found that this defence was not established by the proofs. A decree was advised accordingly. That decree we now affirm, upon the ground that it was not proven that the insurance company made the taking out of a policy in its insurance department a condition precedent to the making of the loan for which the mortgage in question was given, and, further, that the proofs do not show that the company had any interest in or knowledge of the bonus charged defendants by Wood.
For affirmance — Dixon, G-abbison, Knapp, Yan Syckel, Bkown, Clement, Cole, McGeegoe, Smith, Whitakee — 10.
For reversal — None.