Case Name: William Monnett v. Stephen B. Sturges
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1874-12
Citations: 25 Ohio St. 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: William Monnett v. Stephen B. Sturges.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 25
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
William Monnett v. Stephen B. Sturges.
1. Under the act of March 14, 1850, allowing parties to contract' for any rate of interest, not exceeding ten per cent., a note calling for interest at a rate higher than six per cent, carries the agreed rate after due, and until paid, as well as during the time it is made to run.
2. An agreement to pay interest semi-annually, at the rate of ten per cent-per annum, is not usurious within the meaning of said act.
Motion for leave to file a petition in error. -
This was an action upon a promissory note, and the only question was the rate of interest which it bore. The note-was dated in December, while the ten per cent, law of 1850' was in force, and was drawn payable in June next following,. “ with interest from date at ten per cent.,” with a provision that if the note should not be paid when due, “ the interest should be paid at that time, and on the first of December and first of June, semi-annually thereafter till paid.” The-court below allowed the plaintiff to recover upon this note, interest on the principal sum at the rate of ten per cent, from the date of the note to the time of taking judgment, and interest at six per cent, upon each of the semi-annual installments of interest from the time when they respectively fell due. In this it is claimed that the court erred. It is said,, in the first place, that the parties contracted for a greater-rate of interest than the statute allows, which is only ten per cent, simple interest, or ten per cent, payable annually, whereas this note calls for ten per cent, payable semi-annually, and that therefore only six per cent, interest can be recovered. In the second place it is claimed, that by the terms of the contract, the maker is only bound to pay the ten per cent, interest until the note became due, and that after that-time the note only bore interest at six per cent.
Jacob Scroggs, and Scott § Harris, for the motion :
Semi-annual rests are not authorized, because the interest computed semi-annually would become usurious. Patterson v. McNeeley, Ex’r, 16 Ohio St. 348; Bunn et al. v. Kinney, 15 Ohio St. 40.
After the maturity of the note, only six per cent, interest is authorized. Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 How. S. C. 118.
Matson § Leyman, contra:
Interest should be computed at the rate of ten per cent. after maturity. 1 S. & C. 745; Keene v. Keene, 91 Eng. Com. Law, 144; 2 Disney, 398.
Semi-annual rests are authorized. Coe v. C., P. & I. R. R. Co. 10 Ohio St. 394; 1 Wall. 391; 9 Dana, 331; 5 Paige, N. Y. 100; 2 Hill (Tenn.), 408; Tyler on Usury, 244; 69 N. C. 92.
Installments of interest not paid when due, by the terms of the stipulation, bear interest at the statutory rate until paid. 4 Ohio, 374; 3 Ohio, 17; 17 Ohio St. 11.

Opinion:
By the Court.
"We agree with the court below. The-limitation in the statute is upon the rate of interest, and not upon the periods of its payment. An agreement to pay ten per cent, per annum, semi-annually, is not an agreement to-pay more than at the rate of ten per cent, per annum. This is well-settled law in Ohio. It is equally well settled that a contract to pay a specified rate of interest, is a contract to-pay interest at that rate until the principal debt is paid, and not merely for the time the note is to run.
Motion overruled.