Knoles v. Hill

25 Ill. 288
Illinois Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1861·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Breese, J.

The memorandum on the note below the date and signatures, and made by the payee, is no part of the note. It is wholly meaningless — “ when due to draw fifteen per cent.” No one can say that fifteen per cent, per annum was reserved, even if it was shown the memorandum was placed there by the parties. There is no proof whatever that the memorandum was made at the time the note was made, or was signed by the parties as a part of the contract. The note is complete without it, and bears interest at ten per cent, from its date. There is no proof whatever of usury, none of a corrupt agreement to reserve more than ten per cent, on the indebtedness.

The judgment for the interest as computed at ten per cent, is correct, and is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Knoles v. Hill, 25 Ill. 288 (Ill. 1861).

25 Ill. 288 (Knoles v. Hill) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Clifton Mercantile Co. of Clifton v. Gillaspie
15 S.W.2d 607 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1929)
Hayes v. Wagner
89 Ill. App. 390 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1900)
Carr v. Welch
46 Ill. 88 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1867)