Legal Opinion

Block v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1860PublishedCited by 2 opinions

APPEAL from the Allen Court of Common Pleas.

1Opinion of the CourtHanna, J.

This was a prosecution for receiving usurious interest upon a loan of money.

L. C. Jacoby, for the appellant. J. E. McDonald, Attorney General, and A. L. Roache, for the state.

The affidavit states that the defendant “ corruptly contracted for and received,” &p. The information does not contain an averment to that effect. A motion to quash was overruled. Trial and conviction.

The motion to quash should have been sustained. To constitute the offense of usury, a corrupt or usurious intention is requisite. Sutton v. Fletcher, 6 Blackf. 362. Of course the corrupt or usurious intent should be charged…

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Sutton v. FletcherIndiana Supreme Court · 1843

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Davis v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  2. State v. HaneyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1908

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

Powered by the Exa API