Case ID: ill-app_191/html/0001-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Duncan", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Charles H. Mason, Defendant in Error, v. Erik L. Krag and A. L. Thompson, Plaintiffs in Error.
    Gen. No. 19,207.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1913.
    Affirmed.
    Opinion filed December 31, 1914.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Charles H. Mason against Erik L. Krag and A. L. Thompson to recover a sum claimed to be due on a promissory note executed by defendant to plaintiff, dated August 17, 1910, and payable to the order of plaintiff October 1, 1910, with six per cent, interest after maturity. A jury trial was waived and the court found for plaintiff in the sum of $112.25. To reverse a judgment entered on the finding, defendants prosecute a writ of error.
    John J. Lupe, for plaintiffs in error.
    
      Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Appeal and ebrob, § 1414
      
      —when finding of trial court will not. he disturbed. Where no propositions of law were submitted, the findings of the court on the issues of fact are binding upon the Appellate Court the same as a verdict of a jury, when.not manifestly against the weight of the evidence.
    2. Usury, § 81*—when cannot he urged on review. Error of court in allowing usurious interest in a suit on a promissory note, cannot be urged on review where the record does not show the defense of usury was insisted upon by a plea, or a notice or claim of such defense in the trial court
    Charles Lane, for defendant in error.
    
      
      See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same .topic and section number,
    
   Mr. Justice Duncan

delivered the opinion of the court.