Seegar v. Seegar
| Decision Date | 31 December 1857 |
| Parties | GARRETT H. SEEGAR, Appellant,v.JOHN C. A. SEEGAR, Appellee. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
19 Ill. 121
1857 WL 5668 (Ill.)
9 Peck (IL) 121
GARRETT H. SEEGAR, Appellant,
v.
JOHN C. A. SEEGAR, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
December Term, 1857.
Where a note was given while the interest law of 1849 was in force, bearing ten per cent. interest, it is competent for the maker to plead, and show, even subsequent to the passage of the act of 1857, that the note was not given for money loaned; and thus have a rebatement of the interest exceeding six per cent.
ON the 1st September, 1852, appellant made his note for payment to appellee, at ten years' date, for $4,000, and interest at the rate of ten per cent. per annum, payable annually, on which $700 of principal and interest, up to June 1st, 1855, was credited, and appellee sued appellant in assumpsit for $702.50, for installments of interest up to September 1st, 1857. As to four-tenths of the interests sued for, appellant pleaded in bar that note was not given for money loaned. The appellee demurred to the plea, and demurrer was sustained, and judgment rendered in his favor, by HARRIOTT, Judge.
The sustaining of appellee's demurrer to appellant's plea was assigned for error.
D. A. and T. W. SMITH, for Appellant.
J. S. BAILEY, for Appellee.
CATON, C. J.
This note was executed in 1852, and while the interest law of 1849 was in operation. That law allowed six per cent. interest, and no more, in all cases, except for money loaned, when it allowed ten per cent. That law also provided that, in any action brought upon any note, etc., wherein is reserved a higher rate of interest than six per cent., the defendant might plead that the note, etc., was not given for “money loaned,” and if the plea was found to be true, the court should “render judgment for the principal sum in the said promissory note, or writing obligatory, and six per cent. interest thereon.”
In 1857 this law was repealed, and ten per cent. allowed in all cases; and the question is, whether this took away the right to file the special plea authorized by the act of 1849, in an action brought on a note executed while that law was in force. If this right to an abatement of all interest above six per cent. reserved on the face of the note, was in the nature of a penalty, we might then hold that the repeal of the statute imposing the penalty, without any saving clause, took away the
[19 Ill. 122]
penalty itself. But there was nothing like a penalty or forfeiture in that act, of anything to which the party could have a right under...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Orlicki v. McCarthy
... ... Smead, Rule Against Retroactive Legislation, 20 Minn.L.Rev. 775. In Illinois, the principle was reflected in the early case of Seegar v. Seegar, 19 Ill. 121, and was, in 1874, incorporated as a statute relating to construction (Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 131, par. 4,) the relevant ... ...
-
American Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Financial Affairs Management Co., Inc.
... ... See Williar v. Baltimore Butchers' Loan And Annuity Association, 45 Md. 546 (1877); Gilliland v. Phillips, 1 S.C. 152 (1869); Seegar v. Seegar, 19 Ill. 121 (1857); Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Dorsey, 178 Miss. 852, 173 So. 669 (1937); But see later Mississippi decision ... ...
-
Orlicki v. McCarthy, Gen. No. 46224
...at the time of such proceeding.' There are many Illinois cases in which this principle has been discussed and sustained. Seegar v. Seegar, 19 Ill. 121; Parmelee v. Lawrence, 44 Ill. 405, 414; Bauer Grocer Co. v. Zelle, 172 Ill. 407, 50 N.E. 238; Steger v. Traveling Men's Building & Loan Ass......