McFarland v. Bank of the State
Supreme Court of Arkansas
This was an action of debt, determined in the Independence Circuit Court, in August, 1841, before the Hon. Thomas Johnson, one of the Circuit Judges. Declaration on a bond executed to the Bank of the State of Arkansas, on the 28th of April, 1840, due at six months.
Read the full summary
This was an action of debt, determined in the Independence Circuit Court, in August, 1841, before the Hon. Thomas Johnson, one of the Circuit Judges. Declaration on a bond executed to the Bank of the State of Arkansas, on the 28th of April, 1840, due at six months. The defendants pleaded, first, non est factum, not sworn to; second, that the bond was executed for a loan of the notes of the Bank, and that these notes were bills of credit; and third, usury, without averring any corrupt intent. Demurrers to the second and third pleas sustained, and judgment signed by the plaintiff, .disregarding…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Lacy, J.
We deem it unnecessary to notice the two first questions raised upon the record, further than to remark, that it was held in the case of McFarland et al. vs. The Bank of the State of Arkansas, ante, that the issues of the notes of the Bank are not bills of credit, within the meaning of the Federal Constitution. And that, to constitute á good plea of usury, the party pleading it must aver a corrupt intent. It certainly cannot be contended that the Court below erred in disregarding a plea of non est factum, which is not sworn to.
The only remaining inquiry is, do the first…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Graham & Foster v. GoodcellSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
- Cummings v. Washington County Election CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
- Cook v. BevillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- Commonwealth v. CainCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1879
- Vandiver v. Washington CountySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.