Frederick v. Conn. River Sav. Bank

• Decision Date: 29 March 1883
• Citation: Frederick v. Conn. River Sav. Bank, 106 Ill. 147, 1883 WL 10193 (Ill. 1883)
• Parties: J. S. FREDERICKv.CONNECTICUT RIVER SAVINGS BANK et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

106 Ill. 147

1883 WL 10193 (Ill.)

J. S. FREDERICK

v.CONNECTICUT RIVER SAVINGS BANK et al.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Filed at Springfield Mar. 29, 1883.

WRIT OF ERROR to the Appellate Court for the Third District;-- heard in that court on writ of error to the Circuit Court of Ford county; the Hon. OWEN T. REEVES, Judge, presiding.

Messrs. KINNEAR & MOFFETT, for the plaintiff in error.

Messrs. JAMES, JACK & MOORE, for the defendants in error.

Mr. JUSTICE WALKERdelivered the opinion of the Court:

This was a bill filed by plaintiff in error, in the Ford circuit court, to enjoin the sale of a quarter section of land under a deed of trust given to secure the payment of a sum of money owing by plaintiff in error to the Connecticut River Savings Bank.The bill alleges that plaintiff in error, being desirous of borrowing $6000, in October, 1872, applied to Robinson & Calender, of Peoria, agents of the bank, for the loan, when it was agreed that the bank would make a loan of $5600,--$2000 on each of two quarters, and $1600 on the quarter involved in this case; that the complainant was to pay $280 commissions,--part to Robinson & Calender, and the balance to the bank; that the loan was made, and the notes and securities executed, and complainant received but $5320; that the $280 was exacted by Robinson & Calender, by the authority of and as the agents of the bank, as commissions, over and above ten per cent, the rate of interest at which the money was loaned, whereby the transaction became usurious.

It is further alleged that the $2000 notes, each, have been paid in full; that on one was paid the sum of $2643, and on the other the sum of $3000; that in September, 1877, complainant asked for and received a renewal of the $1600, and a loan of $400 more, and gave his note for $2000, at eight per cent, payable in five years, and to secure the same he gave the trust deed on the land sought to be enjoined from sale by this suit; that $60 was deducted at the time this latter arrangement was made, complainant receiving but $340 of this last loan.

It is claimed and urged that the $60 retained as commissions was compensation to Robinson & Calender from the bank for services as its agents, and being such, it was retained as a part of the interest charged for forbearance for the loan of the money, and when added to the interest it made a rate greater than that allowed by law, and that it tainted the transaction with usury.

Plaintiff in error applied to the circuit judge, at chambers, for an order to restrain the sale of the land under the trust deed, but the application was resisted by Robinson & Calender.The bank, although made a party, was not served at that time,...