Mitchell v. Griffith
Supreme Court of Missouri
•Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. The fact3 sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The jury having found for the plaintiff (appellant), no motion was made for ai new trial. The error complained of is in the judgment rendered by the court after verdict. So far as the plea of usury was concerned, there was no dispute about the facts, and no issues to be settled not apparent from the pleadings and papers.
Read the full summary
•Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. The fact3 sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. The jury having found for the plaintiff (appellant), no motion was made for ai new trial. The error complained of is in the judgment rendered by the court after verdict. So far as the plea of usury was concerned, there was no dispute about the facts, and no issues to be settled not apparent from the pleadings and papers. The note sued on was dated August 16th, 1847, and made payable on the 1st November following, with ten per cent, interest from date. The respondent sets forth in his…
1Opinion of the CourtRyland, Judge
This is a suit upon a promissory note by plaintiff, as assignee of Ely, against the defendant. There was a trial by jury and verdict for plaintiff, with a special finding that the interest reserved exceeded lawful interest four per cent. The court deducted from the principal of the note a sum equal to four per cent, per annum on the amount of the note, and gave judgment for the plaintiff for the balance of the principal, and then gave judgment against the defendant in favor of the school fund for six per cent, interest per annum, on this balance of principal, and rendered judgment against the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Evans v. NegleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1825
3Cited by1 opinion
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. WeinrichMissouri Court of Appeals · 1924