Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-02-10
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME
COVRT.
Nashville. DeeembeF Term, 1896.
Reported for the Union and Dispatch. by Lnds-
ley d Reid.
II TL...le. el l,la ~ E-lt Ilnr.

JUG Twelve ilOulil5 Alltl ua4et VIII luLefeh
at the rate Of 10 per cent. per annum from
the date. The declaration is in the usuaI
form. The plaintiffs in error filed foul
! pleas: lst, M debit; ID, That in the year
1851, they borrowed Of the defendant
in error $1,000, agreeing to pay 10 per cent
interest on the same; that said note was re.
! newed from year to year, payments were
! made, and, at the execution Of the note in
| suit, the sum Of Sl303 above the legal in.
ierest had been paid and was included ia
| the note OF $4,000 that the contract was in
violation Of the public law Of the land
Sd. The note was not for borrowed money,
! that neither the principal nor interest
could be collected, it being void by statute.
4th. The note was usurious to the extent OF
Sl303, and the same ought TO be credited
on the note at its date The last plea was
sworn b issue was taken on the first plea ;
| replication to the second AYERS the note
sued on was given in renewal OF
a former note; that it was not true
! the plaintiffs in error borrowed of the
defendants in error $1,000, agreeing to
/ pay ten per cent interest. and it was untrue
the note was renewed from year TO year, and
| that the payments amounted 70 Sl303 above
the legal interest, and that the note is not
usurious nor made in violation Of public
policy, the consideration being $4,000 Of
money loaned-S300O in 1855 and $1,000
in 1853. Replication to the fourth plea
AYERS the defendant in error loaned to the
plaintiffs in error in 1855 $4,000, they
agreeing TO pay him ten per cent. per
annum for the use Of the same; that they
did pay him ten per cent. per aHnum up to
the lst September, 1858, when the defend
ant loaned the plaintiffs the further sum of
$1,000, and that ten per cent. was paid on
the whole sum up TO the lst September,
1860, when the note in suit was executed
The amount of usurious interest included
in the no;e is S758 81, which, when taken
from the note, makes due at its date the
sum of S224l, which is all the defendant in
error claims, less the 500 paid, and he is
willing the plaintiffs should be credited on
the note for that sum. The cause was sub
mitted 10 ajury atthe-- term, in which the
court in substance charged them II the
note sued on was executed after the law
allowing ten per cent interest for money
loaned went into effect, the note would not
be illegal that the defendant in error was
entitled to recover the money loaned, with
~ PEI AHAks AutIlg g1ls Lllt AbutlOuh Interest
being included in the note, would not rem
der it void. The plaintiff in error was
entitled to recover, with the legal interest
the sum less the usury.
The counsel for the plaintiff in error re-
quested the following instructions from the
court: "If the note sued on was given for
usury, and the same was included in and
constituted a part Of the consideration Of
the note, then the usury would taint the
whole contract, and it would be Illegal and
void, and that the defendant in error would
not be entitled 10 recover any part thereof
Secondly, If the note sued on embraced
S758, or any other amount that is usurious
and not for money loaned or if the note.
in fact, is for any consideration not loaned
money, then it would be illegal and the
whole contract, as the note il 10 bear 10 per
cent, would be void, and the defendant
could not recover any part thereof" Which
instructions the court refused, except a. he
had already charged.
The jury rendered verdict in
favor Of the defendant in error. A
new trial was msved for, which was over
ruled, 10 which the defendant excepted and
rendered his bill Of exceptions, which was
done and made part of the record.
The jury found in favor Of the defend
ant in error upon the lst, 2nd and Sd pleas
and upon the Issue on the 4th plea they
found the note sued on included usurious
interest to the amount Of 1924 and judg-
ment was rendered against the plaintiff in
error for the balance of the debt and in
terest. The record has been fled for error.
Two questions are presented for our con
sideration lst Ii is insisted the law au-
thorizing the loan Of money at ten percent.
did not 20 into effect under its provisions
until the 2nd day of September 1850. and
this note being for ten per cent interest on
It's face, and being executed before the law
took effect, il is therefore void. 2nd. The
note includes usurious interest by the pro-
visions OF the End section Of the act passed
February 81, lS60-pamphlet act Of 1859
and 1860, page 81. BY the terms of the
act it is not for money loaned, and is there
fore illegal and void. In answer to the FIRST
proposition assumed in argument, the 9th sec.
Of the act creating the law allowing ten per
cent. interest 10 be given for money loaned,
provides the act shall take effect from and
after the lst day of September, 1860. In
the construction of statutes, the paramount
object is to ascertain the real intention Of
the Legislature creating the law, and when
this is done il is to prevail over the literal
expression Of terms. When the words are
not explicit, the intention is 10 be taken
from the contract, from the necessity of the
law, from the mischie6 felt, and the object
and remedy in view and the intention is
70 be presumed according 10 what Is conso-
nant to reason and good discretion. 1st
kents CONS. 5ll.) This court recognized
this principle in the case of the State
against Clarksville and Russellyille Turn
pike Company, sec. s. in which they say
that it is a general rule that the words Of a
statute Of common use, are TO be taken in
their natural or ordinary sense. and with
ont any forced or altered construction TO
limit or extend their import And 10 dis
cover the intention the courts NAV consider
the subject matter-'the effect aad reason
Of the statute"
There has been much conflict Of opinion
in the various courts of the different States.
and much subtle reasoning on this
question, and no uniformity In the de-
cisions This court held in the case of
Jones Is. Planters Bank, 5th Hum. 65l
the principle thSt seems 10 have governed
all modern cases is, that time will be 30
computed as 10 save the right intended TO
be favored by the law, or TO be secured BY
the parties 10 the contract The common
understanding Of the country was, the law
went into effect on the Let day az Septem-
Der, 1860, and under thatbelief parties con-
tracted The law was upon the statute bOokr,
making that legal on the day the act went
into effect which was illegal previous to
iis taking effect. And in constituting this
statute, such construction viii be given so
as 10 save the right intended 90 be favored
hy the law
When the act has been signed by the
Speakers OF both Houses, as il mus; be TO
become a law, il takes effect from It's pas
sage by relation, and not from the time il
is signed by the Speakers. Aud ifit be
repeating statute, il avoids any act done by
authority Of the repealed law in the inter
val between its passage and signing Meigs
report, 237,
In the act under consideration. period
Of about seven months il 6xed before il
goes into operation. The object and pur-
pose Of the law Was 10 induce parties to
bring money into the State by an increased
rate OF interest, 20 loan it at ten per cent,
which had been previously prohibited; and
under the provisions Of that act, this note
was executed.
Did the Legislature intend by the use OF
the words "from uad oflafH that the act
should go into eject on the End dAy Of
SEPTEMBER Il 60 the word FROM would
convey no meaning, and should not have
heen used. Withou Nle use Of thai term,
ofIsT would convey IN meaning that il took
effect on the 2nd Of 'ptember. BY the
80, Of ~ ,rfr.4- t-fi,,., - ,fr. 70 tb.t q.