
    THE AGRICULTURAL NATIONAL BANK OF PITTSFIELD, Respondent, v. HIRAM G. SHEFFIELD and others, Appellants.
    
      Promissory note—when usurious — lex loci contradi.
    
    The plaintiff, a Massachusetts corporation, agreed to take notes in payment of a judgment, a lien on real estate owned by some of the defendants, under an arrangement which, by the laws of this State, would be usurious, though not so under the laws of Massachusetts. All the defendants resided in the State of Rew York, and the transactions took place in this State, but the notes were dated at Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and made payablejiiere, with the intention, as was claimed by defendants’ counsel, to evade the usury law of this State. The only evidence of such intention was, that one of the defendants offered to draw the note himself ; that the attorney of the bank, in the presence of one of the directors, said “No, we will make the notes ourselves; we have blanks here in my office [at Canandaigua, N. lib], and I will make out the notes,” and he drew the note in question; that there was no agreement or understanding at the time that any of the debt was to be paid in Massachusetts, or that the notes would be paid there. The court at Special Term gave judgment for the plaintiff. The General Term affirmed the judgment, holding that the contract was a Massachusetts contract (Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y., 88; Cutler v. Wright, 22 id., 472), and that the facts stated were not sufficient to show an intention to evade the statute of this State against usury.
    
      Wm. H. Smith, for the appellants.
    
      John Gillette, Jr., for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Morgan, J.

Present — Mullin, P. J., Smith and Morgan, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.  