Sparks v. McFarland
This text of 17 Ind. 205 (Sparks v. McFarland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Suit by the appellees against the appellant, upon two promissory notes, executed by Sparks to the appellees.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
The error relied upon, to reverse the judgment, relates £o the costs.
One of the notes was found to be usurious, while the [206]*206other was not. The defendant moved to tax all of the costs to the plaintiffs. This motion was overruled; but the Court taxed to the plaintiffs such costs as seem to have been ma<le in consequence of the usurious note being joined in •suit with the other. This seems to us to have been light There is no error in the record.
The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
17 Ind. 205, 1861 Ind. LEXIS 354, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-mcfarland-ind-1861.