Delaware state journal. [volume] (Wilmington, Del.) 1870-1883, 1873-06-07
NEW CASTLE CO. COURTS
The Mechanics Lien Law-sheriffs Sale
Set Aside-W. B Virgins Case.

New CASTLE, May Goth. The Courts
were OPENED this morning at the usual
hour, Mr.. Bayard concluding his arPu-
ment In the case Of Given ~. Dillon.
finishing at abont qulrter after II. when
the Court CHARGED the jury, Chief Justice
delivering the charge.
Our law against usury is an ancient
law. II Is not of merely recent enactment
or of recent Interpretation II was passed
as early is the time of George III.
The Jury is not called upon to express
any opinion upon the law that belongs to
the province of the Court. II Is tn
duty of every good citizen to obey thu
law. Usury laws we're originally passed
not so much TO impose penalties as TO re-
strain men from folly TO protect men
against their own imprudent acts. There
have been instances of great hardship |
on the Innocent holders of promisory 1
notes, but there Is no necessity for tn
existence of such state OF things. II
only reonlres intelligence. caution, and |
absence Of negligence for the patty t.
protect himself from the plea of usury, |
be can inquire of the party he takes the
note from If il ia for value, and said party
by admitting il wonld be esiopred from
pleading usury, but the Acknowledge
ment of the maker will not eslop the
payee and indorser from setting mp the
plea so as the Acknowledgement OF the
indorser will not estop the maker from
pleading usury.
am requested to charge that If the
note was void in iis inception, and an
innocent holder without notice had given
value for it, and this fact was so shown
q. Q. Void) BY the pleading and evidence
that the burden Of proving value gwen
for il is thrown upon the plaintiff. 1t Will
not charge upon this as the principles Of
law IN this case are outside of this ques-
ton. am also requested to charge that
though the note may have been perfectly
good 10 its origin, and the holder gave full
value for it, vet if seeking to recover on
1t he has to trace his title through an
indorser who discounted II at usurlons
rates, the faint thus acquired follows the
note and the holder is estopped from re-
covering up on it. decline so to charge
il is not necessary for the Court to say
ANY thing about the conflict OF cases on
that point, as those deciding il in the al
frmatiye have been since overrul ed.
The cause of action in this case is a
note for 5000. made by Dillon, the de-
PENDANT. to Lewis X Son, dated September
LIST, 1871, payable at three months, aud
endorsed by Lewis " Son to B. c. PeaIce,
and by Pearce to A. Given, the plaintiff.
The defence alleged Is, this paper was
of no value whatever, as between Dillon
and Lewis X Son that II was given BY
Dillon purely for the accommodation Of
Lewis Il Son, and being without any
value AZ between them, If 1t was disposed
of BY Dillon, CT by Lewis Il Sou, il must
Of necessity, under the rulings OF the
Courts, be considered and held as loaned
for the value advanced upon II as the
paper had not become an available seeuri-
iy, and, therefore, being loan, If Pearce
gave less than its yslne for It, II 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, / so instruct you thst il
there was no consideration for the mole
between Dillon and Lewis & Son, I. e., Il
purely accommodation note, then tue
transaction hllWeen Lewis " Son and
Penrcp. was in the nature of loan u
no1.ey and was not the sale or purchase
OF d valid, available and negotiable Sc
curily, and being therefore usuiious
Transaction il rendered the note absolutely
void. This is settled by high judicia.
authosity, and money advanced TO either
the maker (Dllou) or Lewis " Son,
(pay,cs and mdOTser~) amounts TO loan.
] further instruct yOu, If the note was
usurions IN iis inception that lhe taini
attaches 10 the note itself, inheTes in il
aud follows il IN the bands OF A. Given
although lie may have been au iunocen
holder for value without notice, Tor +
note originally void remains void forever
as the contract being void remains vo ID
for all time, aud no commercial. meta
Vhysics or galyani.m can cvel put lif'
into il.
The 'orm Of the note is rot material
YOU ar TO look to the substance. thu
truth the fact. As to the representation
alleged To have been made by Lewis, thil
lsa TACT for your consideration. No rep
reseutation OF Loves " Son to Grubb o.
10 P,aTcc as to this being business note
will, iu law, affect or estopp tue matter
lie is himself esiopped If lie makes sucl
representation, but is not est pped by tn
Representations Of others. The plaintiff
contends that this was not an accommo
datiun note, but was given for valuabl
consideration for bricks, or for haanc
of general Indebtedness ON account BE-
tween Dillon and Lewis * Son,
If you are satisfied from the cvidenc
that the note wa an accommodation note
your verdict VIII be- Tor the defend INT
If Won are statistic from tie evidence tia
tue note Was not an accommodate ion. bu
was given 10y Dillon 10 Lewis AZ son To
Indebtedness for brick, or for balance o
account due TO Lewis " Son, then tn
note was good in IT, inception, and NIGH
he ,uhi by Lewis X SON for less than L Pc
cent; aud if good in its inception, tina
nosub=oquent usurious transaction woul
affect il, and your verdict will be for tn
frf.t rtft rtI ftf stlt 10
and returned about $50 with "A verde
for S6jjjO for the plaintiff
In the case OF Silah s. johnson gs. Ih
Green Branch Ditch Co., in which an il
terlocutnry Judgment was obtained 4
last Term, an inqusitiun n Bar was bel
TO ascertain the amount Of damages, an
the ldry rendered "a verdict for piainti
for SlsI o.. Walter Cumuius, Esq, 70
plalnull.
Similar action was also had in the cas-
Of A. ;. WOuley MS. John A. Nllci ell, r,
sulling in verdict for plaintiff for SlOC
W. K. llodgson, Esq, for p.ainlii
Owing TO the time consumed by the trial
had at this term. there were No less tina
twenty-siX cases continued to tn mex
which had been marked on tue list f.
trial In No. 1876 judgment for plainti
for 81 ,53S 4G. No. l3j Judgment il
plaintiff went to be ascertancd by cout
eel. No. ~ judgment for plaintiff f'
al5, Nos, Il and ll9 referred. Nos. :.
ia, III, discontinued. 40. 10 judi
meut To TAYLOR for costs.
The jury were discharged from frth'
attendance at this Term. Tue remand,
OF the afternoon WAS taken up in "A la
argument in the case of James Franz
rs. a. X. W0Olslou, on the cuustructio
of the mechanics lien law, and askiu