Shannon v. Trimble

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

Shannon v. Trimble

2 Ky. Op. 223, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 342

DecidedJanuary 28, 1868

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Ky. Op. 223 (Shannon v. Trimble) 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

Shannon v. Trimble, 2 Ky. Op. 223, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 342 (Ky. Ct. App. 1868).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

It appears from the record that the bills of exception were filed at a special term of the court, and as no objection was then made to the action of the court, it cannot be made an available objection for the first time in this court.

We do not regard the answer of the appellant as presenting a sufficient set-off or counter-claim to which any reply was required, but, as it seems to us, it sufficiently presents as a defense to the [224]*224action that the note was given in consideration of a claim which had already been satisfied by the payment of usurious interest, and was not merely the subject matter of a claim in favor of Redman for usury paid, liable to be barred by limitation. It is not necessary that this court should determine from the evidence in the record whether the defense was wholly or only partially sustained, but we are of the opinion that the judgmentt which disregards the defense of usury except to the extent of $32 is erroneous, and it must on that account be reversed.

Ward, for appellant. Trimble, for appellee.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion:

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

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Hardin :

It appears from the record that the bills of exception were filed at a special term of the court, and as no objection was then made to the action of the court, it cannot be made an available objection for the first time in this court.

We do not regard the answer of the appellant as presenting a sufficient set-off or counter-claim to which any reply was required, but, as it seems to us, it sufficiently presents as a defense to the [224]*224action that the note was given in consideration of a claim which had already been satisfied by the payment of usurious interest, and was not merely the subject matter of a claim in favor of Redman for usury paid, liable to be barred by limitation. It is not necessary that this court should determine from the evidence in the record whether the defense was wholly or only partially sustained, but we are of the opinion that the judgmentt which disregards the defense of usury except to the extent of $32 is erroneous, and it must on that account be reversed.

Ward, for appellant. Trimble, for appellee.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion:

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Ky. Op. 223, 1868 Ky. LEXIS 342, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shannon-v-trimble-kyctapp-1868.