Knoles v. Hill

25 Ill. 288
CourtIllinois Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1861
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 25 Ill. 288 (Knoles v. Hill) 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
Knoles v. Hill, 25 Ill. 288 (Ill. 1861).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Ill. 288, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knoles-v-hill-ill-1861.