Hovey v. Wark-Gilbert Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Hovey v. Wark-Gilbert Co.

227 N.W. 543, 248 Mich. 502, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 597

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided December 3, 1929·No. Docket No. 65, Calendar No. 34,555.·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Plaintiff sued on the note of defendant, a Michigan corporation, due October 22, 1928, and had judgment which defendant reviews on error.

Act No. 335, Pub. Acts 1927, pt. 2, chap. 1, § 1, provided that "no corporation shall interpose the defense of usury to any cause of action hereafter arising."

The cause of action arose when the note became due. The act was then in effect. Defendant sought *Page 503 to interpose the sole defense of usury. This the act forbids.Miller v. Reid, 243 Mich. 694. Judgment affirmed.

NORTH, C.J., and FEAD, BUTZEL, WIEST, McDONALD, POTTER, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred.

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

Plaintiff sued on the note of defendant, a Michigan corporation, due October 22, 1928, and had judgment which defendant reviews on error.

Act No. 335, Pub. Acts 1927, pt. 2, chap. 1, § 1, provided that "no corporation shall interpose the defense of usury to any cause of action hereafter arising."

The cause of action arose when the note became due. The act was then in effect. Defendant sought *Page 503 to interpose the sole defense of usury. This the act forbids.Miller v. Reid, 243 Mich. 694. Judgment affirmed.

NORTH, C.J., and FEAD, BUTZEL, WIEST, McDONALD, POTTER, and SHARPE, JJ., concurred.

Hovey v. Wark-Gilbert Co., 227 N.W. 543, 248 Mich. 502, 1929 Mich. LEXIS 597 (Mich. 1929).

Pincite

227 N.W. 543 (Hovey v. Wark-Gilbert Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related