Case ID: pa_198/html/0377-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Heist v. Blaisdell.
    
      Contract—Breach of contract—Usury—Compensation for services.
    
    Parties may blend compensation for services and payment of interest upon a loan in one contract, and the fact that the compensation' for services is for an indefinite amount does not taint the contract with usury.
    Argued Jan. 7, 1901.
    Appeal, No. 419, Jan. T., 1899, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. No. 4, Phila. Co., Dec. T., 1895, No. 425, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Thomas H. Heist v. Frederick E. Blaisdell.
    Before McCollum, C. J., Mitchell, Fell, Brown, Mestrezat and Potter, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit for breach of contract. Before Audenreed, J.
    From the record it appeared that plaintiff claimed to recover the value of certain shares of stock in a corporation, which he averred that defendant had agreed to deliver to him as compensation for services. Defendant denied the contract as alleged by plaintiff, and averred that the stock which plaintiff was to receive was to be partly in payment for money loaned, and partly in payment for services rendered; that the money loaned had been repaid with legal interest, and that the present demand was usurious. The evidence was conflicting in character.
    The court charged in part as follows:
    Where a man loans money and agrees, in addition, to perform services of an indefinite value, a value which is hard to fix, there he may properly stipulate for some additional compensation for what he is giving under a contract over and above simple interest, and he may recover whatever he has a right to expect under the contract, in addition to simple interest.
    Yerdict and judgment for plaintiff for $7,500. Defendant appealed.
    
      Errors assigned were (1-25) various rulings on evidence and instruction.
    
      Eclwin 0. Michener, for appellant.
    
      John Scott, Jr., and John 6r. Johnson, for appellee, filed a printed brief but submitted no oral argument.
    February 18, 1901:
   Per Curiam,

A careful perusal of all the testimony in the case, of the charge of the court and of the numerous specifications of error, has not disclosed adequate cause for setting aside the judgment and verdict and ordering a new trial. We therefore dismiss the twenty-five specifications of error and affirm the judgment entered by the learned court below.

Judgment affirmed.