Shackleford v. Morriss

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Shackleford v. Morriss

24 Ky. 497, 1 J.J. Marsh. 497, 1829 Ky. LEXIS 329

DecidedJune 13, 1829

StatusPublished

This text of 24 Ky. 497 (Shackleford v. Morriss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Shackleford v. Morriss, 24 Ky. 497, 1 J.J. Marsh. 497, 1829 Ky. LEXIS 329 (Ky. Ct. App. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Morriss purchased two notes, which Shackleford executed to Barbour, who sold them at a considerable discourit; The object of Shackleford and Barbour was;,to raise money on the notes for Shackle-ford’s use. Morriss wás not informed of this; When he bought the notes. Shackleford files his bill, stating that the scheme between him and Barbour; has tainted the transaction with usury, and that he ought not to be made account for more than the sum paid by Morriss for the notes. Not so. Morriss did not lend money, he purchased choses inaction, made assignable by stat-lite, and constituting an article of traffic. There is no usury in it. Afterwards, the notes were renewed, and then usury Was reserved at the rate of 12 1-2'per ¡cent: Shackleford has paid about .the sum due for legal interest, and no more, it Is objected, that notes on the bank of the Commonwealth, when loaned, do not bring an interest, and that notes of hand or bonds, payable in bank notes, do not bear interest; This might be true, if there was no express contract, but here is an express contract to pay interest; more has not been paid than ought to be paid, and there is, therefore, nothing to credit the judgment at law with; and there was no cause for the injunction.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

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

Judge Underwood,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Morriss purchased two notes, which Shackleford executed to Barbour, who sold them at a considerable discourit; The object of Shackleford and Barbour was;,to raise money on the notes for Shackle-ford’s use. Morriss wás not informed of this; When he bought the notes. Shackleford files his bill, stating that the scheme between him and Barbour; has tainted the transaction with usury, and that he ought not to be made account for more than the sum paid by Morriss for the notes. Not so. Morriss did not lend money, he purchased choses inaction, made assignable by stat-lite, and constituting an article of traffic. There is no usury in it. Afterwards, the notes were renewed, and then usury Was reserved at the rate of 12 1-2'per ¡cent: Shackleford has paid about .the sum due for legal interest, and no more, it Is objected, that notes on the bank of the Commonwealth, when loaned, do not bring an interest, and that notes of hand or bonds, payable in bank notes, do not bear interest; This might be true, if there was no express contract, but here is an express contract to pay interest; more has not been paid than ought to be paid, and there is, therefore, nothing to credit the judgment at law with; and there was no cause for the injunction.

Decree affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 Ky. 497, 1 J.J. Marsh. 497, 1829 Ky. LEXIS 329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shackleford-v-morriss-kyctapp-1829.