Footman v. Stetson
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Assumpsit to recover back money, paid for illegal interest, upon certain notes given by the plaintiff to the defendant, and signed also by Orrin Footman as surety, dated in 1834. The plaintiff offered Orrin Footman, as a witness, who was objected to, because a party to said note, but was admitted.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit to recover back money, paid for illegal interest, upon certain notes given by the plaintiff to the defendant, and signed also by Orrin Footman as surety, dated in 1834. The plaintiff offered Orrin Footman, as a witness, who was objected to, because a party to said note, but was admitted. It appeared that judgment upon the note, including the illegal interest, was recovered against this plaintiff in Oct. 1845, which was paid by him on execution in the spring of 1846. This writ is dated Feb’y 1, 1847. The defendant pleaded, by brief statement: — 1. That no part of the plaintiff’s…
1Opinion of the CourtTenney, J.
The case shows, that the payment of what is alleged as being usurious interest, was made in the spring of the year 1846. This action to recover the same was commenced on Feb’y 1, 1847. The statute of limitations which the defendant relied upon, R. S. chap. 69, § 8, is inapplicable.
It was objected, that Orrin Footman, who was allowed to testify for the plaintiff in the case, was incompetent, on the ground that he was upon the note in which illegal interest was reserved. It appears by the case, that he signed the note as surety for the plaintiff, and had no other interest therein. The judgment…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Loring v. MansfieldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1821
3Cited by2 opinions
- Charles v. Davis, Ex'r.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
- Turner v. HamiltonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1898