McKiel v. Real Estate Bank
Supreme Court of Arkansas
This was an action of debt, tried in the Phillips Circuit Court, iu December, 1841, before the Hon. Isaac Baker, one of the circuit judges. The Bank sued Josiah S. McKiel and his securities on two notes, one for f> 1800, due at six months from the 19th of December, 1839, and one for $2000, due at six mouths from the 21st day of November, 1839. The defendants pleaded usiuy and the general issue of nil debet, not sworn to.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, tried in the Phillips Circuit Court, iu December, 1841, before the Hon. Isaac Baker, one of the circuit judges. The Bank sued Josiah S. McKiel and his securities on two notes, one for f> 1800, due at six months from the 19th of December, 1839, and one for $2000, due at six mouths from the 21st day of November, 1839. The defendants pleaded usiuy and the general issue of nil debet, not sworn to. Each plea of usury stated, that the note was given to the Bank to obtain a loan, and each amounted to this: that the notes had six months and the days of grace to run, and…
1Opinion of the Court
By the •Court,
Dickinson, J.
In regard to the plea of usury, it constitutes no defence, in this instance, as the act of 3d March, 1838, authorizes the defendant in error to charge the same rate of interest as the Bank of the State; and the interest, in this case, was calculated ■according to the provisions of that act. The judgment upon the demurrer was, therefore, right. The Bank, being a public corporation, was not required to be proved; as the court was bound judicially to take notice of it. It was not necessary to prove demand at the place of payment, as has been ruled by the court, in the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Hammett v. Little Rock & Napoleon RailroadSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1859