4 D.C. 247 (C.C.D.C. 1832), 13,673, Swann's Adm'x v. Brown

Docket Nº:13,673[1]
Citation:4 D.C. 247, 23 F.Cas. 506
Opinion Judge:CRANCH, Chief Judge,
Party Name:SWANN et al. v. BROWN.
Attorney:Mr. Jones, for the defendant,

Page 247

4 D.C. 247 (C.C.D.C. 1832)

23 F.Cas. 506

SWANN et al.



No. 13,673 [1]

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Oct. 1832. [2]

Bill in equity, stating that William T. Swann, in October, 1819, proposed to borrow of the defendant, $2,300, at ten per cent. per annum, which proposition was acceded to by the defendant; and it was agreed that $1,000 of it should be secured by a ground rent of $152 per annum upon, two lots of land, & c., and that the residue should be secured by a bond, with sureties; the rent and interest to be paid half-yearly, with leave to W. T. Swann to redeem the ground rent on payment of $1,000. He was to retain the loan for three years, but she had a right to demand repayment at the end of any year, upon sixty days' notice; and had a right to enter on the property, if the interest and rent were not punctually paid. That the $2,300 were advanced on those terms. The lots were conveyed to her in fee, and she leased them to W. T. Swann at $152 a year, who also gave his bond for $1,300, according to the agreement, bearing interest at six per cent. per annum. That W. T. Swann died in October, 1830. That $1,400.30 have been paid by W. T. Swann and his administratrix. That the defendant afterward brought suits at law on the bond against this complainant and the sureties. That those defendants were advised that the contract was usurious, and that if they took the defence at law, and should succeed, the present defendant would lose the debt entirely; but they were not disposed to push the matter to that extremity; and the counsel of these complainants agreed with the counsel of the present defendant at the bar, at the time the judgment was rendered, and in the presence and hearing of the court, that the plea of usury should be withdrawn, and a judgment rendered upon the bond, with an understanding that these complainants should have the privilege of resorting to a court of equity to have the claim settled, upon the same principles as if she had instituted against the defendant, a bill in chancery for the discovery of the usury. That they have been advised that they are not bound in equity to pay more than the principal debt, and are entitled to have credit for the moneys which the administratrix has paid, to be deducted out of the sum of $2,300 loaned as aforesaid, and only bound to pay the balance of principal; but that the defendant has issued execution for the whole amount...

To continue reading