Collins Iron Co. v. Burkam
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error as the acceptors of a bill. of exchange, drawn by C. A. Trowbridge, upon them, for §1,304,22, dated Cincinnati, April 12th, 1858, and payable at the office of E. G. Burkam &¡ Co., at six months, with ten per cent interest.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne Circuit. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error as the acceptors of a bill. of exchange, drawn by C. A. Trowbridge, upon them, for §1,304,22, dated Cincinnati, April 12th, 1858, and payable at the office of E. G. Burkam &¡ Co., at six months, with ten per cent interest. The defendants below pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of a set off, and also that the bill declared on was given in settlement of a series of money transactions between them and Burkam, during which they had paid to him the sum of §717.54 for…
1Opinion of the Court
Martin Ch. J.:
There was no error in the refusal of the Circuit Judge to charge as requested concerning the first transaction and its effect; nor in the charge as given. The bill of exchange was executed under the law of Ohio, and was payable in that State; and its validity will be determined by the law of that State. As usury does not avoid a contract there, but only affects the remedy, we can enforce the contract, but by do other remedies than those furnished by our own statute. Those provisions of the Ohio statute which provide for the recovery or appropriation of usury paid upon a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Thurston v. PrentissMichigan Supreme Court · 1849
- Craig v. ButlerMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by3 opinions
- Edwards v. LoganCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1902
- Voorhies v. FrisbieMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
- Smith v. Franklin, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1933