Moir v. Harrington
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit brought on a promissory note made by defendants. The declaration contained special and common counts. The defendant filed two pleas. The first was the general issue.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit brought on a promissory note made by defendants. The declaration contained special and common counts. The defendant filed two pleas. The first was the general issue. The second plea set up, “ that the said note was given for the sole and only consideration of the sum of $1,000, loaned to two of defendants, Hopkins and Harrington, on November 17, 1856, and that the other defendant, Phelps, signed the same as security without other consideration; that at the time of making the note and loan, the plaintiff corruptly contracted with Hopkins and Harrington to…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
The only question in this case arises from the demurrer to the second plea, which was sustained by the court. That plea commences thus: “ and for a further plea in this behalf, the said defendants say actio non, because they say,” etc., and then goes on to show that the note was given for an usurious loan of money—that the money loaned and usurious interest thereon were both included in the note. The plea Avas no doubt an excellent one where usury destroys the whole cause of action, but was a bad plea under our statute. It professes to answer the whole cause of action, but answers only a part.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Dickerson v. HendryxIllinois Supreme Court · 1878
- Gebbie v. MooneyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1887
- American Insurance v. HollyIllinois Supreme Court · 1876