Earll v. Mitchel
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action for money had and received, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, to recover back excess of usurious interest over the legal rate, alleged to have been taken by the defendants, of the plaintiff, during the years 1854, 1855 and 1856, and was tried by a jury, before Sheldon, Judge, at December term of Stephenson Circuit Court, A. D. 1858. The plaintiff declared on the common counts, for money had and received by the defendants to…
Read the full summary
This was an action for money had and received, brought by the plaintiff in error against the defendants in error, to recover back excess of usurious interest over the legal rate, alleged to have been taken by the defendants, of the plaintiff, during the years 1854, 1855 and 1856, and was tried by a jury, before Sheldon, Judge, at December term of Stephenson Circuit Court, A. D. 1858. The plaintiff declared on the common counts, for money had and received by the defendants to plaintiff’s use. Defendants pleaded general issue—payment and set-off. It appeared that during a period of time…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
The question which we shall consider in this case, is whether this was a loan of money or the purchase of bills of exchange. We do not consider it at this time a question open to dispute, that a party may purchase a sight or time bill of exchange on another place, even within the same State, of either the drawer or indorser of the bill, and pay therefor any price, which the parties may agree upon. But such a transaction is always open to inquiry, as to whether the pretended purchase of the bill of exchange was merely colorable and really designed to cover up a usurious loan of money or not.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Burrows & Prettyman v. Cook & SargentSupreme Court of Iowa · 1864
- Wolsey v. NeeleyAppellate Court of Illinois · 1892