Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

73 Ill. 213

Puterbaugh v. Farrell

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided September 15, 1874

Illinois Supreme Court · decided 1874-09-15

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of Peoria county; the Hon. J. W. Cochran, Judge, presiding.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-09-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1931

4 state decisions

101874188018901900191019201930decided

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 →

Mr. Justice Breese

¶1delivered the opinion of the Court:

¶2This was assumpsit, in the Peoria circuit court, on a promissory note. The defense was usury, and tried by the court without a jury. The court found for the plaintiff the amount of the note and interest, and rendered judgment therefor. Defendant appeals.

¶3The case turned upon the point, was this note for a new loan, or for the balance due on the first loan? If the first, then it was claimed the transaction was usurious.

¶4The defendant held the affirmative of the issue, and was bound to maintain it by a preponderance of evidence. The plaintiff was called as a witness by defendant, and he stated distinctly the note in suit was for a new loan, and he is corroborated by the fact that the old note was surrendered and trust deed released, and this note accepted without security. ■

¶5We think, with the circuit court, that the old transaction was closed, and this note given for a new loan, and must be paid according to its terms.

¶6The judgment of the circuit court is.right, and must be affirmed.

¶7Judgment affirmed.

/73/ill/213 · .json · Public domain