Highfill v. McMickle
Highfill v. McMickle, Administrator
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Downey, J.
This was an action by' the appellee against the appellant on a promissory note executed by the defendant to the plaintiff’s intestate. The answer, as to all of the amount of the note over and above six hundred and ninety-five dollars and eighty-three and a half cents, set up the defence of usury. The alleged illegal interest was at the rate of ten per cent, ‘on notes which had been given prior to the 9th of March, 1867, the date of the present interest law, and included in the note sued upon. An able brief is submitted by counsel for the appellants, in which we are asked to re *271 view and overrule the decisions of this court holding 'that that act renders valid contracts for interest at a greater rate than six per cent, made before its passage. Pattison v. Jenkins, 33 Ind. 87 ; Klingensmith v. Reed, 31 Ind. 389 ; Sparks v. Clapper, 30 Ind. 204 .
S. K. Wolfe, for appellant. A. J. Simpson, for appellee.
But the question is not so clear as to justify us in this course.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs and two per. cent, damages.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.