Case ID: ky_3/html/0299-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

CRAIG vs. MORTON.
    A ,Donl1 foc ct°nfipay 400/. on a par-ticularday, and charged by 325Í ftanearlierday, for^oonfpay! men; is not as m"
    See. 1 Vern. 2IO> z68> 45s Téo — Barnard"' 481 — 3 Atk. 520-
    ON the 26th, day of March 1801, Craig gave his bond to Morton, for 800/. conditioned for. the payment of 400/, on the first day of November ensuing; indorsed that the bond might be discharged by the payment of 150/. in cash, in June next ensuing, and 175/. in trade, delivered by the first of November. Craig, in 1803, confessed judgment on the bond for a balance of 66/. 12,?. 5d. He filed his bill in the Mason circuit court, to get relieved from that judgment. He alleged, that the bond was given for the purchase of land of the defendant, at 325/. payable according to the indorsement of the bond.; that Morton, fearful the payments would not be punctually made, “ demanded a bond for 400/. that the 75/. was a penalty, and that he had paid more than the sum of 325/. ; but did.not shew any part tohave been paid in the time stipulated in the indorsement. He also alleged that the confession of judgment was. torted from him, by his being held to bail “ in the enor-. mous sum oí 500/. '’ and his particular situation, at the. time ; and to get relieved, he confessed judgment for what Morton said was due. On this bill, he procured, an injunction.
    The answer denied the contract, as stated by Craig; alleged that by the contract, he was to receive the payment stipulated in the condition of the bond. That his. deigapd? for money wet? such, as induced him to mak$ ^he offer of taking the less sum, at the earlier day. That the offer yras voluntary, apd indorsed at Craig's request, (put mad? 110 part of the original agreement. The answer denied that the confession of judgment was procured by the means stated, and went into a detail to shew that it was fair. Depositions were taken ; and, on motion, the injunction was dissolved : and on the final hearing, the bill was dismissed.
    1 Vern. 210, 268,456 — Pie, C&an. 'i6o — a Powell on con-tira&saij.
    May 3rd.
    1 Craig prosecuted a writ of error; and the cause was argued by Allen, for the plaintiff in error. '
   1 The Opixjox of the Court, after taking a view of. the bill, answer, and depositions, by which, amongst Other things, it appeared, in substance, that Craig agreed io pay 400/. as stated in the condition of the bond ; and .that Morton agreed, if the payments were made in the Üme and manner stated in the indorsement, he would fake it in full Of the bond ; find that the indorsement was on the bond at the time of its execution, proceeded :

Upon this summary of evidence, the base stands, at; best, as favorable'for Morton as it did on the bond and indorsement, unaided by the confession of j udgment. *

If equity will give no other construction to the instrument, than the parties themselves have given to it at law, it is unnecessary to stir ‘ other questions, or to say any thing as to the manner in which the complainant has attempted to avoid his confession of-judgment.'

The quéstiorí presentéd by the bond and indorsement, (against which there is ho charge Or suspicion of any at-' tempt to evade, by shift, any statutory provisions respecting loans of money) is a limited one ; to which we must answer, either as common lawyers, or chancellors, that the effect given to the instrument in the judgment at law, is the proper one. In the cases of mortgages bearing an interest of four and a half percent■ with clause of reduction to four, in case of prompt payment V if. prompt payment is not made, equity will not relieve against the hM percent. Tn the case of Nicholas vs. Maynard, 3. Atk. 520, that great chanbellor, Hardwicke, in speaking'of" such mortgages, says, if the mortgagor fails of making payment at the appointed time, he cap-pot be’ relieved’ “ any ‘more than many other composition$ between the parties because the abate was for prompt payment, and the terms of the agreertient not being cdrof jplied with, the mortgagee is entitled to interest at four find a half per cent. In this case, the abatement was to have been allowed, not only for prompt, but for previous payment also.

If Graig had been pleased to perform the condition precedent, he would have been entitled to the abatement ; he did not bind himself to do it, and Morton had no right to demand it. Craig having had the full measure of delay given by contract, cannot have relief against his own laches. The bill seems, indeed, predicated up-en the expectation that the bond itself would be considered, as to the differences between the face and the in-dorsement, merely nomine poena / or that he could prove it so by parol. If the face of the bond had been for 325/. and the indorsement had stipulated an increase for default of payment, then indeed such a construction would have been right; and, upon a proper case made, out, would be relievable in equity.

Decree affirmed.