Osborn v. McCowen
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the appellee against the appellant, in the Mason Circuit Court. The declaration contained the common money counts, and also the following special count, to wit: “James McCowen, plaintiff in this suit, by Con well & Wright, attorneys, complains of Silas D. Osborn, defendant, who was summoned, etc., in a plea of trespass on the case on promises, for that whereas the said defendant, heretofore, to wit, on the 9th day of June, A. D.…
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, commenced by the appellee against the appellant, in the Mason Circuit Court. The declaration contained the common money counts, and also the following special count, to wit: “James McCowen, plaintiff in this suit, by Con well & Wright, attorneys, complains of Silas D. Osborn, defendant, who was summoned, etc., in a plea of trespass on the case on promises, for that whereas the said defendant, heretofore, to wit, on the 9th day of June, A. D. 1859, at the county aforesaid, made his certain promissory note in writing of that date, and then and there delivered…
1Opinion of the CourtCaton, C. J.
If this plea is not good, then has the wit of man succeeded in devising a form of expression, which defeats the statute of usury, which a very high authority has said was impossible. But the plea is undoubtedly good. In form, the note is not usurious, as we have often decided. But there may be a thousand forms perfectly legal and fair on their face, which the intent of the parties may render in substance and in fact usurious. Where the form is fair, the intent of the parties must stamp upon it its true character.' When this note was given, it was not the expectation or the purpose of either…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Cooper v. NockIllinois Supreme Court · 1862