
    Florence V. Haigh et al., Resp’ts, v. Christine H. Crocker et al., Appl’ts.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed March 14, 1892.)
    
    1. Usury—Injunction.
    The court is not absolutely bound to believe affidavits read in opposition to the continuance of an injunction.
    S. Same.
    The fact that the business was done by agents who claim that their principal did not authorize or know of or benefit by the usury taken, is not conclusive on the question of the principal’s liability, as notwithstanding these facts there may have been complicity between them.
    
      Appeal by defendants from order continuing injunction.
    
      1). A. Stephens, for app’lts; Foster & Stephens, for resp’ts.
   Per Curiam.

One of the questions, and indeed the only one was, whether the appellant was implicated in the taking of usury upon certain notes and a mortgage to secure them made by the respondents upon personal property. The business was done by agents of the appellant who claim that she did not authorize, or know of or benefit by the usury that no doubt was taken. The learned judge was not absolutely bound to believe the affidavits read for defendant. Indeed they might literally be true- and yet there be such a relation between the appellants and agents-in this matter, as would evince a complicity between them.

Order affirmed, with ten dollar’s costs to abide the event

Sedgwick, Oh. J., Dugro and Gildersleeve. JJ., concur.  