What is the test for an action at law against a party who is not a party to the loan?

With the exception of Thompson v. Van Vechten, these cases are all actions at law, and in that case the plaintiff was seeking to enforce his usurious contract against lienholders.

In Post v. Bank of Utica, supra, it was distinctly held that the purpose of the statute was to protect the borrower and that the borrower's right is personal to him and cannot be asserted by a stranger to the transaction; that the law was made to prevent oppression and to rescue the party oppressed. It is said: What has the grantee of the borrower to do with the original contract of loan? How is he liable upon that contract to pay the money borrowed? What connection in law exists between the lender of the money, and a purchaser of the mortgaged premises from the mortgagor? * * * How are the respondents to be connected with a loan made four years before they recovered their judgment? * * * Page 405 of 7 Hill.