Hoopes v. Ferguson
| Citation | 10 N.W. 286,57 Iowa 39 |
| Parties | HOOPES v. FERGUSON. |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1881 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Dallas circuit court.
Action upon a promissory note for $26. The action was originally brought before a justice of the peace. The defendant, for answer, averred that the note was given for interest on money borrowed and was wholly usurious. The plaintiff recovered, but upon an appeal being taken to the circuit court judgment was rendered against her and in favor of the defendant for costs. She now appeals.Cole & Cole, for appellant.
A. R. Smalley, for appellee.
The circuit court made a finding of facts in substance as follows: The defendant, Ferguson, borrowed of one John M. Hoopes the sum of $224, upon which he agreed to pay 15 per cent. interest per annum until the same should be paid. Afterwards, to-wit, November 2, 1877, the defendant and John M. Hoopes had an accounting, and it was agreed that the defendant should give Hoopes the use of a certain building in the town of Dallas Center for two years, in full payment for the money borrowed and interest thereon at 15 per cent. per annum. Afterwards, to-wit, September 26, 1878, the defendant and Hoopes made a new deal. The defendant desired the use of the lower story of the building, and Hoopes released or surrendered it to him. Hoopes had taken the whole building at an estimated rental of $12.50 per month, and it was estimated in the new deal that the lower story was worth upon that basis $8.50 per month, leaving $4 per month as the rental value of the remainder of the building. In this new deal six notes were executed by the defendant, for $26 each, and were made payable to the plaintiff, one of which is the note in suit. The court found that these notes were given for the balance due on the original claim as refigured by Hoopes and Ferguson on the basis of the original transaction, and that the note in suit was not purged of usury. It also found that the amount paid was more than sufficient to discharge the original debt, with legal interest, and accordingly rendered judgment for the defendant.
The question certified to us is in these words: “Was the note in suit purged of the usury in the original transaction by taking the lease of the lower rooms of the building referred to in the above finding of facts?” The only difficulty in this case consists in determining what construction should be put upon this finding. It shows that the original indebtedness was paid in...
To continue reading
Request your trial