Struthers v. Drexel
Decision Date | 27 May 1887 |
Citation | 122 U.S. 487,7 S.Ct. 1293,30 L.Ed. 1216 |
Parties | STRUTHERS v. DREXEL |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Geo. Shiras, Jr., and Rasselas Brown, for plaintiff in error.
John Dalzell, for defendant in error.
This is an action of assumpsit brought by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error and Thomas S. Blair, the latter not having been served with process. The declaration contained two special counts, as follows:
It also contained common counts, for goods bargained and sold, money had and received, and money laid out and expended for the use of the defendants.
To this declaration the plaintiff in error pleaded, as to all the counts, (1) that the consideration mentioned in the alleged agreements, referred to in the declaration, bearing date April 4, 1873, April 4, 1874, and March 22, 1875, was never paid, nor was any valid consideration paid or given, or agreed to be paid or given, therefor; (2) that the alleged agreements were usurious under the laws of New York, where they were made, being a mere device or contrivance for obtaining to the plaintiff more than the legal rate of interest for money advanced by way of loan to the Blair Iron and Steel Company; (3) that the plaintiff did not tender the 400 shares of stock referred to in the plaintiff's declaration, as therein alleged; (4) that the alleged agreements were void as against public policy, being in fraud of the other subscribers to the stock of the Blair Iron & Steel Company, as they secured to the plaintiff an advantage over other subscribers by a secret agreement; (5) that the agreement set out in the declaration was without consideration; (6) the statute of limitations of six years.
The cause was tried by a jury, and a verdict and judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $34,651.36, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted. The transcript of the record contains what purports to be the charge of the court in full, with a memorandum at the close, stating that defendants' counsel excepted to certain portions thereof; but, as it is not verified, or included in any proper bill of exceptions, we are not at liberty to treat it as a part of the record for any purpose. Several bills of exception were taken, during the progress of the trial, to rulings of the court, on which assignments of error are alleged, and which we will consider in their order.
'NEW YORK, April...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kansas City v. Markham, 33030.
...Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 Fed. 574; Salem Trust Co. v. Mfg. Finance Co., 264 U.S. 197, 68 L. Ed. 628; Struthers v. Drexel, 122 U.S. 495, 30 L. Ed. 1216; Atlanta Joint Terminals v. Walton Discount Co., 29 Ga. App. 225, 114 S.E. 908; King v. State, 136 Ga. 709, 71 S.E. 1093; Spicer v. King B......
-
Kansas City v. Markham
... ... 134; ... Natl. Discount Co. v. Evans, 272 F. 574; Salem ... Trust Co. v. Mfg. Finance Co., 264 U.S. 197, 68 L.Ed ... 628; Struthers v. Drexel, 122 U.S. 495, 30 L.Ed ... 1216; Atlanta Joint Terminals v. Walton Discount ... Co., 29 Ga.App. 225, 114 S.E. 908; King v ... State, ... ...
-
Buessel v. United States
...or whether there were errors in the charge as actually given, or whether any requests to charge were improperly refused. In Struthers v. Drexel, supra, the Supreme Court declared the matters not spread upon the record in legal manner are not in the record for any purpose; and it is also evi......
-
McCuing v. Bovay
...8 Wall. 354, 356, 19 L. Ed. 418; Clune v. United States, 159 U. S. 590, 16 S. Ct. 125, 126, 40 L. Ed. 269; Struthers v. Drexel, 122 U. S. 487, 491, 7 S. Ct. 1293, 30 L. Ed. 1216; Malony v. Adsit, 175 U. S. 281, 20 S. Ct. 115, 44 L. Ed. 163; Origet v. United States, 125 U. S. 240, 8 S. Ct. 8......