Case ID: idaho_6/html/0108-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HUSTON, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(May 9, 1898.)
    VERMONT LOAN AND TRUST COMPANY v. MAXWELL.
    [53 Pac. 1130.]
    Syllabus in this ease same as in Vermont Loan etc. Co. v. Tetzlaff, decided at this term, ante, p. 105.
    APPEAL from District Court, Latah County.
    George W. Goode, for Appellant.
    The same question which is submitted by appellants in the case of Vermont Loan and Trust Go. v. Aaron Tetzlaff et al., in this term of this court, which is, “That the contract sued upon, being usurious, the action is prematuretly brought on a default of payment of interest.” The principal note sued upon matured December 1, 1897, this complaint was filed August 21, 1895. (Vermont Loan etc. Go. v. Hoffman, 5 Idaho, 376, 49 Pac. 314; Harmon v. Ashmead, 61 Cal. 439; 5 Am. & Eng. Eney. of Law, 483, notes; 12 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 71; notes, Brackett v. Guenin, 15 Colo. 281, 22 Am. St. Rep. 402, and note, 25 Pac. 167; Duluth Nat. Bank u. Knoxville Fire Ins. Go., 85 Tenn. 76, 4 Am. St. Rep. 750, 1 S. W. 689; Chase v. Whittm, 51 Minn. 485, 53 N; W. 767.)
    A. E. Gallagher & R. T. Morgan, for Respondent.
    No brief filed.
   HUSTON, J.

— This case involving the same question decided in Vermont Loan etc. Co. v. Tetzlaff et al., ante, p. 105, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

Costs to appellant.

Sullivan, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.