Bishop Hill Colony v. Edgerton

26 Ill. 54
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedApril 15, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 26 Ill. 54 (Bishop Hill Colony v. Edgerton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Illinois Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bishop Hill Colony v. Edgerton, 26 Ill. 54 (Ill. 1861).

Opinion

Caton, C. J.

The signature of the clerk to the summons, by using the initial for his first name, was sufficient.

There should have been a bill of exceptions, to show this court the facts upon which the party claimed the right to a continuance. The presumption is, that the court decided the motion for a continuance properly.

After the parties had agreed upon the amount due for the broom corn, by virtue of the statute, interest was recoverable upon that amount.

It was perfectly competent for the parties to agree that ten per cent., or even a greater amount, if there was no design to evade the statute against usury, should be paid on the ¿mount of the note for delay of payment, after it became due, though no specific time for forbearance was agreed upon.

We find no error in the record, and the judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

National City Bank v. Majerczyk
2011 IL App (1st) 110640 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2011)
Haas v. Cravatta
389 N.E.2d 226 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1979)
Thayer v. Wilmington Star Mining Co.
105 Ill. 540 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1882)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
26 Ill. 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-hill-colony-v-edgerton-ill-1861.