Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Tilden_v._Blair
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:23:17+00:00

Document:
On the 4th of August, 1869, W. T. Pelton, a resident of Chicago, Illinois, and doing business there, drew a draft on Tilden & Co., residents of New Lebanon in the State of New York, payable to his own order, for $5000 at sixty days, dating it at Chicago. This draft Pelton sent to Tilden & Co., to the members of which firm he was nearly related, and they accepted it, 'payable at the Bank of North America, New York,' for his accommodation and in order to aid him in raising funds for carrying on his business, and without any consideration or security therefor, and without any funds in their hands to protect it; the understanding being that the draft was to be discounted at a certain bank in Chicago, and that Pelton should take it up at maturity. Having accepted the draft, Tilden & Co. sent it back to Pelton, for the purpose of being negotiated in Illinois, and in order that the proceeds might be used in his business in that State and in Michigan. Pelton having indorsed the draft delivered it to one A. C. Coventry for the purpose of having him negotiate it for the benefit of him, Pelton; and Conventry, having indorsed it also, sold it through a note-broker to one Blair at Chicago for $4825, and no more, Blair, at the time when he discounted the draft, having no knowledge whatever of the understanding between Tilden & Co. and Pelton, or that the draft was accommodation paper and accepted without any funds in the hands of Tilden & Co.
Accepted, payable at the Bank of North America, New York.
Indorsed: W. T. PELTON, A. C. COVENTRY.
By statute of New York, the exacting of greater interest than seven per cent. renders a contract illegal and void.
By the statutes of Illinois ten per cent. interest is lawful. Any agreement for a higher rate forfeits all the interest. But the contract is not void and the principal may be recovered.
The draft matured, of course, on the 6th of October, 1869; and the acceptors refusing to pay it, Blair sued them in assumpsit in the court below. Plea, usury.
2d. That the negotiation and transfer having been made in Illinois was valid, except as to the interest reserved.
3d. That interest having exceeded the rate of ten per cent. per annum interest was forfeited, and could not be collected either from the drawers or acceptors. That as to the principal, it was valid as to both.
4th. That the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the sum of $4825, being the principal less the interest illegally reserved, with costs.
The defendants excepted to the first, second, and fourth of these conclusions of law, and to so much of the third as found that the contract, except as to interest reserved, was valid, and was binding on the defendants as to the principal.
The plaintiff excepted to the fourth conclusion so far as it limited his right of recovery to the $4825, and to the refusal of the court to allow interest.
Judgment being given for $4825, the defendants, Tilden & Co., brought the case here on error; Blair, the plaintiff, not taking any writ or assigning any error.
That the draft was accepted, and was payable in New York, appeared on its face and was notice to all the world; and the liability of the acceptors on their contract could not be varied by the place where the drawer or holder transferred the obligation.
By the law of New York, the negotiation of the draft was unlawful, and the contract connected with it wholly void. The judgment giving Blair anything was, therefore, erroneous.
1. The acceptance having been made without consideration, for the accommodation of Pelton, and having had no validity until it was negotiated, and having been first negotiated in Illinois, it had its legal inception there, and the only contract made by the defendants, or created by the transfer of the acceptance, was made there.
2. The draft is dated at Chicago, and that was the place of residence, and place of business, of the drawer; and the acceptance having been made and delivered for the purpose of being negotiated in Illinois, and used in the business carried on by the drawer in that State, it is clear that the acceptance was made with intentional and direct reference to the laws of Illinois.
This being the true law of the case, and there having in truth been no question of usury in the case, it is Blair, the plaintiff below, not Tilden & Co., who has cause to complain of the judgment. Blair, it is plain, has recovered less than he was entitled to. While the acceptance was $5000, he recovered but $4825, thus losing $175. In addition he lost the interest from 6th October, 1869, when the note matured, to 2d March, 1873, when the judgment was rendered. The question now is, whether, inasmuch as the record is brought here by the other side and not by us, we can obtain the relief which we are clearly entitled to? What good reason is there why this court should not correct the error in the judgment of which we complain? The sole object of a writ of error is to bring into the appellate court the record from the court below, in order that it may be reviewed. The whole case with all the facts found and the conclusions of law as stated, is already before the court on the present writ. By no possibility can the court ever be better informed as to the facts or the alleged error of which we complain. Should Blair be required to sue out a separate writ of error in his own behalf, he would necessarily bring here this same record without the variation of a word. Is such a duplication of this suit required?
The second section of the act of June 1st, 1872,  provides that this court may affirm, modify, or reverse the judgment, decree, or order, brought before it for review, or may direct such judgment, decree, or order, to be rendered, or such further proceeding to be had, by the inferior court, as the justice of the case may require.
^1 Everett v. Vendryes, 19 New York, 436; Hyde v. Goodnow, 3 Id. 266; Cook v. Litchfield, 9 Id. 280; Lee v. Selleck, 33 Id. 615.
^2 Everett v. Vendryes, 19 New York, 436, 439; Thatcher v. Morris, 11 Id. 437, 439.
^3 Lee v. Selleck, 33 New York, 618; Cook v. Litchfield, 9 Id. 290; Hyde v. Goodnow, 3 Id. 270.
^4 Raplee v. Morgan, 2 Scammon, 561; Sherman v. Blackman, 24 Illinois, 347.
^5 17 Stat. at Large, 197.
^6 Marquat v. Marquat, 12 New York, 336; Beach v. Cooke, 28 Id. 508; Edmonston v. McLoud, 16 Id. 543; Purchase v. Matteson, 25 Id. 211; Brownell v. Winnie, 29 Id. 400; Hannay v. Pell, 3 E. D. Smith, 432.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.