Kock v. Block

29 Ohio St. 565
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1876
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 29 Ohio St. 565 (Kock v. Block) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Kock v. Block, 29 Ohio St. 565 (Ohio 1876).

Opinion

By the Court.

"We think the district court were right in-reversing the judgment of the court of common pleas.

The recovery is resisted on the grounds that the usurious interest was voluntarily paid-as such interest by the principal debtor. Independent of the act of February 18,1848 (1 S. & C. 744), this would constitute a defense to the action. But under that act all payments of interest in excess of the rate allowed by law at the time of making the contract, are to be deemed payments on account of the principal; and as between the original parties, no more could be recovered than the balance found due after deducting the excess of interest paid or exacted.

As the negotiation of the note by Kock subjected the sureties to the payment of the note in favor of the holders, in excess of what they would have been required to pay had he retained the note himself, we think they may, under the statute, recover back the excess they have thus been required to pay.

Leave refused.

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

Related

Luebke v. Moser
598 N.E.2d 760 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1991)
Pearson v. Pearson
16 N.E.2d 837 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1938)
Liebelt v. Carney
2 P.2d 144 (California Supreme Court, 1931)
State Ex Rel. Masters v. Beamer
141 N.E. 851 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1923)
Sutton v. Stacey Manufacturing Co.
17 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 497 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County, 1915)
State ex rel. Hunt v. S. M. Fronizer
3 Ohio N.P. (n.s.) 303 (Sandusky County Court of Common Pleas, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 Ohio St. 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kock-v-block-ohio-1876.