Legal Opinion

Bishopp v. Blair

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided June 14, 1900PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Bill to Foreclose a Trust Deed.—Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Farlin Q. Ball, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1899.

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Windes

The principal defense made by appellant and now insisted upon in this court, is that all the dealings between him and the appellees constituted one continuous transaction, the whole of which is tainted by usury, and therefore that neither the appellee Blair nor Knott and Lewis are entitled to recover anything from him by way of interest, but that because of the usurious nature of the whole transaction they forfeited all claim to interest, and are only entitled to recover the balance due upon the respective notes held by them after deducting from the principal thereof the several payments made…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mosier v. NortonIllinois Supreme Court · 1876
  2. Goodwin v. BishopIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
  3. Mitchell v. LymanIllinois Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Waterman v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Iowa · 1885
  5. Bevier v. . CovellNew York Court of Appeals · 1881

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Rittenhouse & Embree Co. v. BarryAppellate Court of Illinois · 1901
  2. Potter v. Fitchburg Steam Engine Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1903

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API