Bradford v. Daniel

SOMERY1LLE, J.

— This was an action of detinue, brought by the appellant, against the appellee, for a mule; and the only plea of th.e defendant, in the court below, was non detinet. A written contract was introduced to show title, which provided that “ the mule is to be Bradford’s ” (the appellant’s) “ until paid for.” Its consideration was borrowed money, and the mule in controversy in this action.

The testimony of Daniel, showing that the contract was usurious, though offere.d in connection with evidence of payments made by him on the debt, was improperly admitted. Section 2092 of the Code…