Skip to main content
· 10/2/1884

Keckley v. Union Bank

Citations

  • 79 Va. 458
  • 1884 Va. LEXIS 102

Syllabus

<p>x. Practice At Common Law—General Issue—Special Pleas.—Where, in an action at law, the pleadings have already been made up on the general issue, and after much delay the defendant tenders prolix and obscure special pleas setting up matters amounting to the general issue and provable under it, the rejection of such pleas by the trial court is not error. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Polly, Woods & Co., 14 Gratt. 447.</p> <p>2. Idem—Usury—Special Pleas—Case at Bar.—Special plea avers that note in suit was made for balance of a note given by one not a party to the suit, for the aggregate of sundry notes, one whereof was undue, and that there was no allowance made for that fact in ascertaining such aggregate, and that hence interest having been twice exacted for the sum of the undue note, the note for the aggregate was usurious, and tainted the note in suit—</p> <p>Held :</p> <p>Failing to include the present worth only, instead of the face value of the undue note, did not constitute usury in the note for the aggregate ; but if it did, the taking of the note in suit was such change of parties as purged the transaction of usury, and the new note is valid. Drake v. Chandler, 18 Gratt. 909.</p> <p>3. Idem—Mistakes—Equitable Defences—Case at Bar.—Where plea avers that note in suit was made for balance of a note given for the aggregate of sundry notes, and that in the aggregate there was by mistake included a note which had been paid, and that the mistake had been continued on into the note in suit, and was only recently discovered by defendant—</p> <p>Held:</p> <p>If such be a defence, it should have been made by a sworn plea under Code 1873, ch. 168, sec. 5, or in a court of equity.</p> <p>4. Idem—Inducements—Equitable Defences.—Where plea avers that defendant had been induced 'by plaintiff to make a note, for which the note in suit is a renewal, and which was given for another’s debt, by representing to defendant that that debt was amply secured by trust deed on real estate, wh

Judges: Richardson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.