Dooley v. Stipp
Illinois Supreme Court
This was a bill in chancery, alleging that Dooley gave Culbertson a note for $1,235.68, dated July 1, 1855, due in one day, and agreed to pay 15 per cent, interest. Dooley made some payments, which were indorsed on said note. Culbertson, after said note was due, sold it to Stipp. Stipp and Dooley, Dec. 1,1856, computed amount due on old note at fifteen per cent. Stipp threatened to sue Dooley if new note was not given.
Read the full summary
This was a bill in chancery, alleging that Dooley gave Culbertson a note for $1,235.68, dated July 1, 1855, due in one day, and agreed to pay 15 per cent, interest. Dooley made some payments, which were indorsed on said note. Culbertson, after said note was due, sold it to Stipp. Stipp and Dooley, Dec. 1,1856, computed amount due on old note at fifteen per cent. Stipp threatened to sue Dooley if new note was not given. Dooley gave new note for $1,117, due March 25,1856, with two per cent, per month after due, and by accident left old note in Stipp’s possession. Dooley also owed Stipp, Oct.…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
These are two writs of error upon the same record, neither party being satisfied with the decree below, and they have been considered together.
The transactions complained of in this bill occurred before our present usury laws were enacted, and by the law as it then stood, the party who had paid usury could file a bill to recover it back, and by that law the rights of these parties must be determined. The cause was set for hearing on bill, answers and replications. The bill was properly dismissed as to Niccolls. He bought the judgment against Dooley without notice of the usury, and collected…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Parmelee v. LawrenceIllinois Supreme Court · 1868
- Pope v. PopeIllinois Supreme Court · 1954
- Glos v. RandolphIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
- Hooper v. TraverIllinois Supreme Court · 1929
- Bachmann v. Supreme Lodge Knights & Ladies of HonorAppellate Court of Illinois · 1892