Ayers v. Metcalf

Citations

• 39 Ill. 307

Syllabus

<p>1. Instruction—should leave the facts to the jury. An instruction which takes away from the jury the consideration of testimony properly before them, is erroneous.</p> <p>3. Evidence—agreement to pay interest, by what character of evidence to be proven. The statute authorizes parties to contract for the payment of interest, and a contract for that purpose, like any other lawful agreement, may be proven by positive or circumstantial evidence.</p> <p>3. A promise to pay interest may be inferred from the particular mode of dealing between the parties, or from the usages of trade governing the business in which the parties were engaged.</p> <p>4. So where it appeared that a party arranged with his banker to overdraw his account, and did overdraw; and that on previous occasions, he had, on making settlements with his banker, paid interest upon amounts overdrawn, these are circumstances, in connection with the fact that the party advancing the money was a banker, engaged in loaning money for a profit, proper to be considered by a jury, in determining whether there was an agreement to pay interest on the sums overdrawn in the particular instance.</p> <p>5. Admissions—what weight they are entitled to. Admissions are not necessarily conclusive upon the party calling for them; they should be considered and weighed by the jury precisely as other evidence.</p> <p>G. Jurors—who may excuse them, from attendance. A sheriff has no power to excuse any of the members of a regular panel of jurors; that is the province of the court alone. And should a sheriff assume to do so, the irregularity shoulá be promptly checked.</p> <p>7. Same—effect of such action of the sheriff. But the simple fact that a sheriff has, without authority, excused jurors who have been regularly selected, from attendance, will not warrant the conclusion that his motives were corrupt, or that the parties were prejudiced by his action.</p>