Wilmington daily commercial., 1873-05-31
THE UsURY CASES.

/ INTERESTING SERIES OF THLAI9-THE UbURY LAVE
| TEsrED-oHARGE OF THE COURT, YESTERDAY
sMPoRTANT DEoIsIoNs OF COMMERCIAL Law.
At the session of Court for this county just
closed at New Castle, two highly interesting ca
ses we're tried in which various questions arsir &
out Of the Laws against Usury were agreed and
decided. They consumed nearly the whole OF
the third week of Court, and as they were rep
resentative Cases, on the result of which a num-
ber of others depended, there was quite an ar
| ray OF counsel on both sides.
In the second Of these cases that of Given
Us Dillon, the charge of the Court was delivered
yesterday, by cLief Justice Gilpin, and was sub
stantially as follows
| Our law against usury is an ancient law It s
/ not of merely recent enactment, or Of recent in
depreciation; it was passed as early as the time
| OF George ii.
The Jury is not called upon to express any
| opinion on the law-that belongs to the province
| Of the Court 1t is the duty of every good citi-
| zen to obey the law. Usurv laws were originally
| passed, not 30 much to impose penalties as to
| restrain men from folly; to protect men against
| their own imprudent acts. There have been in-
stances OF great hardship On the innocent holders
of promissory notes, but there Is no necessity
for the existence of such state of things.
1t only requires diligence, caution and absence
of negligence for the party to protect himself
from the plea of usury He eau inquire of the
party he takes the note from il it ii for value.
and said party, by admitting 1t, would be estopped
from pleading usury but the acknowledgement
OF the maker will not estopp the maker from
pleading usury.
1 am requested to charge that If the note was
void in its inception, and an innocent holder
without notice bad given value for it, and the
voidneHB was 30 shown by the leading evidence,
that the burden OF proving value given for it is
thrown upon tho plaintiff will not charge upon
this, as the principles Of law in this case are
out ide OF this question.
am also requested to charge that though the
note may have been perfectly good in its origin
and the holder gave full value for 1t, yet IL seek
ing to it, he has to trace his title through
an indorser who discounted it at usurious rates,
the taint thus acquired follows the note. and
the holder is thus estopped from recovering up
OH it. decline so to charge. 1t is not neces-
sary for the Court to say any thing about the
conflict of cases upon that point, as those deci-
ding it in the affirmative have been since over
ruled.
The cause of action in this case, is note for
5000. made by Dillon, the defendent, to Lewis
d Son dated Sept 1. 1871, payable at months
and endorsed by Lewis & Son to D. @. Pearce,
and by Pearee to A. Given the plaintiff.
The defence alleged is this paper was of no
value whatever as between Dillon and Lewis d
Son that it was given to Dillon purely for the
accommodation of Lewis Son ; and being
without any valne as between them, il it was
disposed OF by Dillon, or by Lewis Il Son, it
must Of necessity, under the ruling OF the
Courts, be considered and held as sound for the
value advanced upon ii that as the papers had
not become an available security, and therefore
being q loan, II Pearce gave less than its value
for il, it was thereby vitiated, never acquired
value and was worthless.
The fact is established by proof that Pearce
took more than per cent for the note sued
upon. This being so, and not disputed, 30 in
struct you tn il there was no consideration for
the note between Dillon and Lewis & Son, e,
a purely accommodation note. then the transaction
between Lewis IL Son and Pearce was in the ma
ture of loan OF m l1bey, and was not the sale or
purchase OF a valid available, negotiable secur-
ity; and being therefore a usurious transaction
it rendered the uote absolutely void. 1t is settled
by high judicial authority, and money advanced
to either the maker (Dion) or Lewis q Son,
(payees and endorBers) amounts to loan.
further instruct you il the note was usurious
in it's inception that the taint attaches to the
note itself, inheres in it and follows 1t in the
hands of A. Given, although he may have been
an innocent holder for value without notice; for
a note originally void remains void forever, as
the contract being void remains void for all time
and no commercial metaphysics or galvanism
can ever put life into it.
II you are satisfied from the evidence that the
note was not an accommodation note, but was
given by Dillon to Lewis Il Son for indebtedness
for brick, or for balance OF account due to Lewis
x Son. then the note was g0oh in its inception,
and might be sold by Lewis Son for less than
per cent and il good in its inception. that no
subsequent uSurl0ub TRANSACTION would aHecG lti
and your verdict will be for the plaintiff,
The form of the note IL not material you are
to look to the substance the truth, the fact. As
to the representations alleged to have been
made by Lewis. this is fact for your consdera-
ton. No representations Of Lewis Il Son to
Grubb or to Pearce as to this being business
note will in law affect or estopp the maker. He
is himself estopped. if he makes such represen-
tation, but is not estopped by the representa-
tions of others. The Plaintiff contends that
IVA 1lnI an accommodation nOta but
given for valuable consideration, for bricks, or
for balance of eralindsbtedness on account
between Dillon and Lewis S Son.
Ieyou are satisfied from the evidence that the
note was an accommodation note your verdict
will be for the Defendent.