Parmelee v. Lawrence
Citations
- 48 Ill. 331
Syllabus
<p>1. Interest—recovery upon usurious contract under act of 1867. The interest law of February 28, 1867, directs that in cases arising upon contracts entered into while the law of 1849 was in force, and before the law of 1857 was passed, the penalty for usury shall be a forfeiture of the excess of interest above what the parties might have lawfully contracted for, and no more.</p> <p>2. So in a suit to foreclose a mortgage given to secure a loan of money, under a contract entered into in September, 1856,—that is, while the interest law of 1849 was in force, and before the law of 1857 was passed—in which interest was reserved at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum, the mortgagee may recover, under the act of 1867, interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum, that being the rate for which the parties might have lawfully contracted at the time the contract was made.</p> <p>3. This is the proper and legal effect of the act of 1867, notwithstanding it operates to take away a portion of the penalty for reserving usurious interest, prescribed by the law as it existed at the time the contract was entered into.</p> <p>4. And the act of 1867 is not confined in its operation in that regard, to contracts upon which suits might be brought after its passage, but applies also to contracts concerning which suits might have been pending and undetermined at the time it was passed.</p> <p>5. Same—effect of the act of 1869. The act of March 27, 1869, by which it is provided that the act of 1867 shall not be construed to apply to any suit pending at the time of its passage, cannot operate to change the rights of the parties in the appellate court on an appeal from a decree which was rendered in the court below before the act of 1869 was passed.</p> <p>6. Constitutionality of the act of 1867—of vested, rights. The act of 1867, as above construed, is not in violation of the rule of the constitution which secures vested rights against legislative interference, for the law recognizes
Judges: Lawrence
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- McSurely v. McGrewSupreme Court of Iowa· 1908-11-17· cited 54×
- Davis v. General Motors Acceptance CorporationNebraska Supreme Court· 1964-04-24· cited 27×
- Chicago & Alton Railroad v. AdlerIllinois Supreme Court· 1870-09-15· cited 24×
- Coe v. Frederick E. Muller & Gulf Pine Co.Supreme Court of Florida· 1917-11-28· cited 16×
- American Savings Life Insurance v. Financial Affairs Management Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1973-09-20· cited 13×
- Petterson v. BerryNinth Circuit· 1903-10-19· cited 12×
- American Railroad Co. v. HernándezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1905-06-01· cited 11×
- Sweeney v. Citicorp Person-To-Person Financial Center, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois· 1987-06-15· cited 8×
- Drake v. LathamIllinois Supreme Court· 1869-01-15· cited 4×
- Coshun v. HurlburtOregon Supreme Court· 1921-11-22· cited 2×
- Daggs v. EwellU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Texas· 1879-01-15· cited 1×
- American Railroad v. HernándezSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1905-06-01
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Parmelee v. LawrenceIllinois Supreme Court· 1867-04-15· cited 79×
- Sutphen v. CushmanIllinois Supreme Court· 1864-04-15· cited 44×
- Stockham v. MunsonIllinois Supreme Court· 1862-04-15· cited 8×
- Nichols v. StewartIllinois Supreme Court· 1859-01-15· cited 6×
- Dooley v. StippIllinois Supreme Court· 1861-04-15· cited 5×
- Kinsey v. NisleyIllinois Supreme Court· 1860-01-15· cited 2×
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.