The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1873-06-14
The UsttrV Cases.
INTERESTING SERIES OF TRIALs-THE UsURY LAWS
TEsTED-cHARGE OF THE COURT, YESTERDAY
IMPORTANT DECISIONS OF coMMERcIALLAw.

From the Wilmington Delaware Tribune, of June 9Th
AT the session of Court for this county, just
closed at New Castle, two highly interesting
cases were tried, in which various questions
arising out of the Laws against Usury were
agreed and decided. They consumed nearly
the whole of the third week of Court, and as
thew were representative cases, on the result OF
which number of others depended, there was
unite an array of counsel on both sides.
In the second of these cases that of Given
VS.. Dillon, the charge of the Court was deliver
ed Friday, by chief Justice Gllpln, ana was
substantially as follows:
our law against usury is an ancient law is not OF
merely recent enactment or of recent Interpretation
IL was passed as early as the time Of George IL.
The Jury called upon to express any OPINION on
the aW-that belongs to the province OF the Court IL
is the duty of every good citizen 70 ooey .ns
pose penalties to restrain men from Jolly TO pr0ece
men against their own imprudent acts: There nave
been instances of great hardship the innocent hold
ers of promssory notes but there is no necessity Tor the
existence of such a state of things.
It only requires diligence caution and absence OF neg
gence for the party 20 protect himself from the plea of
usury He can inquire of the party he takes the note
from if it is for value and said party, by admitting IT,
would be estopped from pleading usury; but the ac-
acknowledgement of the maker will not estopp the maker
am requested to charge that the note was void in
its inception and innocent holder without notice had
given value for it, and the voidness shown by
the leading evidence that the burden Of proving value
upon this the principles of law in this case are out
side of this question.
am also requested to charge that though the note
may have perfectly good in its origin, and the hold
err gave full value for it, yet if seeking to recover it, he
has to his title through an ndorser who discount
ed il at rates. the faint thus acquired follows
the note the holder is thus estopped from recover
ing upon it. decline to charge. 1t is not necessary
for the Court to say any thing about the conflict of cases
upon that point those deciding it in the affirmative
have been since overruled
The cause of action in this case is note for 5000
ma Al Infa,n rsS ~ Con ofad
Sept 1871 payable at months and endorsed by Lew
is Son to B. c. Pearce, and by Pearce to A Given the
plaintiff
whatever as between Dillon and Lewis Son; that 1t
was given to Dillon purely for the accommodation OF
Lewis Son; and being without any value as between
Courts, be considered and held sound for the value
advanced upon it that as the papers had not become
an available security, and therefore being loan, il
Pearce gave less than its value for it, it was thereby vi
| tiated, never acquired value and was worthless.
The fact is established by proof that Pearce took
than per cent for the note sued upon This being
and not disputed so instruct you that if there
consideration for the note between Dillon and Lewis
Son, e., purely accommodation note, then the trans
action between Lewis Son and Peace was in the nature
of loan Of money and was not the sale or purchase oil
Valid available negotiable security; and being there
fore usurods transaction it rendered the note absolute
y void. 1t is settled by high judicial authority and
money advanced to either the maker Dilon) Lewis
| & Son, (payees and endorsers) amounts to loan.
further instruct you if the note was usurous in its
inception that the faint attaches to the note ITSELF in
heres it and fellows it in the hands of A Given, al
though he may have been an innocent holder for value
without notice. for a note originally void remains vote
forever as the contract being void remains void for al
time and commercial metaphysics or galvansm car
| ever put life into it.
If you satisfied from the evidence that the nott
was not accommodation note, but was given by Dill
lon to Lewis Son for Indebtedness for brick for bal
ance of account due to Lewis Son. then the note wa
good in its inception, and might be sold by Lewis
Son for less than per cent? and if good in its ncep
tion that subsequent usurous transaction would at
feet it, and your verdict will be for the plaintiff.
The form of the note is not material you to lool
to the substance the truth, the fact As to the represen
tations alleged 20 have been made by Lewis this is
fact your consideration No representations of Lew
is & Son Grubb to Pearce to this being bust
ness note will in law affect or estopp the maker. He il
himself estopped, if he makes such representation, Blu
is not estopped by the representations of Others TIT
plaintiff contends that this was not an accommodation
note, but was given for valuable consideration, TO
bricks or for balance of general indebtedness on
count between Dillon and Lewis & Son.
If you satisfied from the evidence that the not
accommodation note your verdict will be for thu
| defendent.