Case ID: okla_62/html/0271-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "HOOKER, 0.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GRAFA et al. v. SCHENCK.
    No. 7743
    Opinion Filed Oct. 24, 1916.
    Rehearing Denied Jan. 23, 1917.
    (162 Pac. 1119.)
    Error from County Court, Bryan County; J. L. Rappolee. Judge.
    Action by A. J. Schenck against R. F. Grata, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error.
    Affirmed.
    Porter Newman, for plaintiffs in error..
    Hayes & McIntosh, for defendant in error:
   Opinion by

HOOKER, 0.

This is a suit instituted by the defendant in error against; the plaintiffs in error to recover a judgment upon a promissory note. The defense-relied upon here is that of usury, and it is; alleged in the answer that the defendants-have paid about $170 usury upon the note' since it was executed before the institution.' of the suit. , The record is here by transcript, and not by case-made. The errors complained of cannot be reviewed for the reason that the same requires an examination of all of the evidence; and, inasmuch as the evidence is not before us, we cannot intelligently pass upon the objections urged by the plaintiffs in error. However, it might not be amiss to say that the ease of Miller v. Oklahoma State Bank, 53 Okla. 616, 157 Pae. 767,. seems to be decisive of the matters involved here.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

Bj the Court: It is so ordered.