Hall v. Marks

• Decision Date: 30 September 1870
• Citation: 1870 WL 6488,56 Ill. 125
• Parties: WILLIAM HALLv.LEWELLYN MARKS.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

56 Ill. 125

1870 WL 6488 (Ill.)

WILLIAM HALL

v.LEWELLYN MARKS.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1870.

APPEAL from the County Court of De Kalb county; the Hon. DANIEL B. JAMES, Judge, presiding.

This was an action of assumpsit brought by Marks against Hall, on the following promissory note:

+---------------------------------------+
                ¦“$200.¦SHABONA GROVE, March   28, 1861.¦
                +---------------------------------------+
                

Middle of June, after date, I promise to pay to the order of L. Marks, two hundred dollars, value received, at ten per cent interest.

WM. HALL.”

The declaration contained a special count upon the note, and the common counts.

Among other pleas, the defendant filed the following:

The second plea, after alleging that the several counts in the declaration were for one and the same cause of action, to wit, the promissory note in the special count mentioned, says: “And said plaintiff ought not to have and recover of the defendant twenty dollars of the amount of the said promissory note described in said count, and ten per centum interest therein stated, because he says that on, to wit, the 28th day of March, A. D. 1861, being in want of money, defendant made application to the plaintiff to borrow of him two hundred dollars for about two and a half months from that date, and the said plaintiff agreed with defendant to loan him the sum of one hundred and eighty dollars of money, and that defendant should give said plaintiff his promissory note for two hundred dollars, payable the middle of June next after date, with ten per cent interest from the date thereof; and the defendant, in fact, says, that, in pursuance of said corrupt and usurious agreement, he executed and delivered to the said plaintiff his promissory note for the sum of two hundred dollars, dated the said 28th day of March, 1868, and due and payable the middle of June next after date, with ten per cent interest from the date thereof, in consideration of the loan of the said sum of one hundred and eighty dollars, the loan of which for the term of from the said 28th day of March, 1861, until the middle of June then next as aforesaid, the only consideration of the said note being the same note sued on and described in the said first count of said declaration. And defendant further avers, that twenty dollars of the amount of said promissory note, and the ten per cent interest as aforesaid, were usuriously, corruptly and unlawfully charged, and were contrary to the statute in such cases made and provided, and this he, the said defendant, is ready to verify. Wherefore, he prays judgment,” etc.

Sixth plea. And for a further plea in this behalf, defendant says the said supposed causes of action in the several counts are for one and the same thing, to wit: the promissory note in the first count of said declaration mentioned, and that the said plaintiff ought not to have and recover, to wit, one hundred and fifty dollars, because he says the consideration for which the said promissory note was given has in part failed in this: that the only consideration for which the said promissory note was given was the full amount of two hundred dollars of broken, depreciated and uncurrent bank bills, commonly known as “stump-tail,” of the value of fifty cents, and no more, for cash, and which said defendant borrowed of said plaintiff at the time of the date of said note, and every dollar thereof; and the said plaintiff then and there represented and stated that said bank bills were good, current and would pass for the full face thereof. The said plaintiff then and there well knowing such statements and allegations by him made as to the value of said money or bank bills to be false; and the said defendant, not knowing said bank bills to be depreciated and uncurrent, and relying upon the statements and representations of the said plaintiff as to the value thereof, received the same as and for two hundred dollars, and then and there gave his note therefor, for the sum of two hundred dollars, and the defendant avers that said bank bills were of small value, to wit, of one hundred dollars, and no more, and that he, said...