Case ID: ind_12/html/0099-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Ouriam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maxwell and Another v. Mullis and Others.
    This ease is precisely like McGregor et ux. v. Axe et ux., 10 Ind. R. 362.
    
      Wednesday, May 25.
    APPEAL from the Orange Circuit Court.
    
      I Baker, D. McDonald, and H. P. Thornton, for the appellants.
   Per Ouriam.

This was a bill in chancery, filed by the appellants against the appellees, to enjoin the collection, and procure the cancellation, of a certain promissory note, on the ground of usury.

There was a decree enjoining the collection of a part of the note; but the appellants insist that a greater portion of it should have been enjoined, while the appellees complain, by way of cross-error, of the action of the Court in enjoining any part of it.

The cause was set down for hearing, and heard, at the April term, 1853; but the Court not then being sufficiently advised, took it under consideration until the September term of the same year, when there were a finding and a decree as above indicated.

At the time of the finding and judgment, the revised code had taken effect, and by that the cause must be governed. No motion for a new trial was made by either party, nor was any exception taken to any ruling of the Court; hence, no question is presented by either party for' our consideration.

This case cannot be distinguished from McGregor v. Axe, 10 Ind. R. 362.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.