Sheppard v. Wood

Appellate Court of Illinois

Sheppard v. Wood

78 Ill. App. 428, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 998

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedOctober 5, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 78 Ill. App. 428 (Sheppard v. Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sheppard v. Wood, 78 Ill. App. 428, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 998 (Ill. Ct. App. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harker

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit upon a promissory note for $333.50, executed by appellees to M. T. Sheppard and assigned by him to appellant before maturity. The defense interposed was that the note was a renewal of former notes given on a contract for a usurious rate of interest, and that appellant had notice of the usury before taking the note. The defense prevailed and judgment was recovered for $159 only. The usury is admitted and the only question submitted for our consideration is whether appellant had notice of it.

The evidence shows that M. T. Sheppard is a banker at Lovington, Illinois; that appellant is the wife of J. B. Sheppard, a brother of M. T. Sheppard, and lives at Texarkana, Arkansas; that appellant, through her husband, sent $4,500 to M. T. Sheppard for investment, and that the note in controversy was purchased with money so sent for investment. M. T. Sheppard thereby became the agent of appellant. Appellant was chargeable with notice of the usury contained in the transaction to the extent of her agent’s knowledge. Story on Agency, Sec. 140; First National Bank of Monmouth v. Dunbar, 19 Ill. App. 558; Boyd v. Herkes et al., 25 Ill. App. 527.

No error was committed by the court in receiving proof of statements of appellant as to the agency, contained in her deposition taken in another case.

Seeing no error in the record the judgment will be affirmed.

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

Mr. Justice Harker

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit upon a promissory note for $333.50, executed by appellees to M. T. Sheppard and assigned by him to appellant before maturity. The defense interposed was that the note was a renewal of former notes given on a contract for a usurious rate of interest, and that appellant had notice of the usury before taking the note. The defense prevailed and judgment was recovered for $159 only. The usury is admitted and the only question submitted for our consideration is whether appellant had notice of it.

The evidence shows that M. T. Sheppard is a banker at Lovington, Illinois; that appellant is the wife of J. B. Sheppard, a brother of M. T. Sheppard, and lives at Texarkana, Arkansas; that appellant, through her husband, sent $4,500 to M. T. Sheppard for investment, and that the note in controversy was purchased with money so sent for investment. M. T. Sheppard thereby became the agent of appellant. Appellant was chargeable with notice of the usury contained in the transaction to the extent of her agent’s knowledge. Story on Agency, Sec. 140; First National Bank of Monmouth v. Dunbar, 19 Ill. App. 558; Boyd v. Herkes et al., 25 Ill. App. 527.

No error was committed by the court in receiving proof of statements of appellant as to the agency, contained in her deposition taken in another case.

Seeing no error in the record the judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 Ill. App. 428, 1898 Ill. App. LEXIS 998, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheppard-v-wood-illappct-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack