TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Crawford v. Johnson

Crawford and Another v. Johnson and Another

Crawford v. Johnson, 11 Ind. 258 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
December 3, 1858
Judges
Perkins
Citations
11 Ind. 258
Headnotes
Under the statute of 1852 (1 E. S. p. 344, \ 4), usury, or illegal interest, may exist without the actual loan of money. Where notes were given for the purchase-money of real estate, drawing 6 por cent, interest, and secured by a mortgage, and other notes were given for 2 per cent, upon the whole amount, so as to reserve 8 per cent, interest: Held, that in a suit to foreclose the mortgage, after the notes for the 2 peícent. had been paid, the mortgagor could set up usury, under § 4 supra.
Summary
APPEAL from the Montgomery Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Perkins

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Perkins, J.

Suit to foreclose a mortgage. Defense, usury. Issue of fact. Trial by the Court, and judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the debt and interest.

The evidence is upon the record, and is as follows:

Francis M. Heaton testified that the notes secured by the mortgage in suit, were given for the purchase-money of the land described in the mortgage; that witness drew up the notes; that he first drew them to the amount of 8,000 dollars, with 8 per cent, interest, but that, on consultation, the parties thought they would be illegal, and they destroyed those notes; that witness then drew up new notes for the 8,000 dollars, the price of the land, bearing 6 per cent, interest, being the notes mentioned in the mortgage, and for the other 2 per cent, he drew up separate notes, being those set up in the answer; that it was all one transaction, and the notes were given for the price of the land and the delay of payment. The notes for the 2 per cent, set up in the answer, had been paid.

Under our present statute, usury, or illegal interest, may exist, without the actual loan of money. The statute reads thus:

“If a greater rate of interest than is hereinbefore allowed [6 per cent.] shall be contracted for, or received, or reserved, the contract shall not, therefore, be void; but if, in any action on such contract, proof be made that illegal interest has been directly or indirectly contracted for, or taken, or reserved, the defendant shall recover costs, and the plaintiff shall recover only his principal without inter *259 est; and if interest shall have been paid thereon, judgment shall go for the principal deducting interest paid.”

J. M. La Rue, D. Royse, S. C. Willson, and J. E. McDonald, for the appellants (1) . I. Naylor, for the appellees.

We think the facts in this case bring it clearly within this section of the statute, and that the Court should have been governed by its provisions in rendering judgment.

Per Curiam. — The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, with instructions to the Court below to render judgment as the section provides in cases of usury.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1860–1861: 11862–1863: 11866–1867: 11878–1879: 11884–1885: 11892–1893: 218602026peak 1892 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Brown v. Gardner72 Tenn. 145 (1879)
  2. Borum v. Fouts15 Ind. 50 (1860)
  3. Irvin v. Mathews75 Ga. 739 (1885)
  4. Fisher v. Hoover21 S.W. 930 (Tex. App. 1893)
  5. Swayne v. Riddle37 W. Va. 291 (1893)
  6. Newkirk v. Burson21 Ind. 129 (1863)

Most recent

  1. Swayne v. Riddle37 W. Va. 291 (1893)
  2. Fisher v. Hoover21 S.W. 930 (Tex. App. 1893)
  3. Irvin v. Mathews75 Ga. 739 (1885)
  4. Brown v. Gardner72 Tenn. 145 (1879)
  5. Newkirk v. Burson28 Ind. 435 (1867)
  6. Newkirk v. Burson21 Ind. 129 (1863)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list