Mallett v. Stone

17 Iowa 64
CourtSupreme Court of Iowa
DecidedOctober 6, 1864
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 Iowa 64 (Mallett v. Stone) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mallett v. Stone, 17 Iowa 64 (iowa 1864).

Opinion

Lowe, J.

1. Usury: construction of contract. The, only point for our determination is, whether the defense of usury can be sucessfully pleaded, under circumstances stated, to the note sued. We think clearly not. The special contracts ent;ere¿ into as aforesaid, after the maturity of the note, to obtain further time in the payment thereof, do not in law relate back to the date of the original contract so as to infect its, validity. The note, in its inception, was valid, untainted with any illegality, and it ever remained so; it was not changed or renewed so as to include the subsequent special contracts alleged to be usurious, but remained intact from these, and is now alone sued. The usury complained of pertains to the special contracts of forbearance. These, by the court below, were treated as usurious, and the money paid under them were applied [66]*66as a general credit on the original contract, which we think was right, and all the defendant could reasonably ask. The judgment will therefore he

Affirmed.

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

Related

State Ex Rel. Turner v. Younker Brothers, Inc.
210 N.W.2d 550 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1973)
J. W. Squire Co. v. Hedges
205 N.W. 525 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1925)
Cobb v. . Morgan
83 N.C. 211 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 Iowa 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallett-v-stone-iowa-1864.