Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

31 Ind. 389

Klingensmith v. Reed

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1869

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1869-05-15

<p>¡Record.—Interrogatories.—Rejected Pleadings.—Interrogatories filed by a party to.an action, .and the .answers thereto by the .opposite party, and paragraphs of answer to the-complaint which are rejected by the court on motion, are not parts .of .the record if not made .so by bill of exceptions.</p> <p>Ixterest.— Contract.—Remedy.—Where a person -contracts for the payment of a higher rate of interest than can .at the time bo lawfully contracted for, but the law in force at the time -the remedy is sought against him allows parties to-contract for the .payment-of such higher rate, the latter law controls.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1869-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 1973

5 state decisions

20186918701880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gregory, J.

¶1The -only question presented by the record arises on the action of the court below in sustaining the demurrer t© the third paragraph .of .the .answer.

J. S. Harvey, W. V. Burns, and I. Klingensmith, for appellants.R. B. $ J. 8. Duncan, for appellee.

¶2The interrogatories filed by the plaintiff, the answers thereto by the appellants, and the paragraphs of the answer to the complaint which, were rejected by the court below on the motion of the appellee, are no part of the record, not having been made so by bill of exceptions.

¶3The. note sued on bears, date the 27th day of September, 1866, aud is for $770, payable one year after date;

¶4The paragraph of the answer to which the denrurrer was sustained avers, “that as to twenty-eight dollars, the plaintiff’ charged a greater rate of interest than six per cent., therefore unlawful aud usurious; aud that the same was included in the note.”

¶5The law in force at the time the remedy was sought allowed parties to contract for the payment of any rate of interest not exceeding ten per cent, per annum,, and declared the taking of interest in excess of ten per cent, per annum usurious.

¶6The paragraph in question is bad, for not showing any violation of this law.

¶7The judgment is affirmed, with ten per cent, damages and costs.

/31/ind/389 · .json · Public domain