Whitmore v Francis
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 December 1820 |
| Date | 14 December 1820 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 146 E.R. 1314
IN THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
whttmore v. francis. Demurrer. Thursday, 14th Dec. 1820,-Demurrer allowed to a bill stating that money was lent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, on his promissory note, for the amount and interest, and that it was agreed between them that interest should be paid after the rate of 61. 10s. per cent., and that no interest had been in fact paid ; and praying that the Defendant might answer an interrogatory as to the fact of such agreement; and for an injunction to restrain proceedings commenced at law on the note, but the Plaintiff did not make any offer to pay the money so admitted to have been lent. The objection on which the demurrer was founded was, that the statute had not imposed forfeitures or penalties on the agreement to take, but on the taking of illegal interest, having in the case of an usurious agreement only made the instrument void. The bill, which was filed in this case for a discovery, stated that the Plaintiff resided with his father, a brewer, and assisted him in that business-that the Defeti-fendant kept a public house, and that the defendant applied to the Plaintiff, through a third person, to take defendant's son as an apprentice, ottering to lend the Plaintiff 20001.-that the Plaintiff refused to take the Defendant's son aa an apprentice, but acceded to a subsequent offer by the Defendant to lend the Plaintiff 20001. at 61. 10s. per cent, per annum, which was afterwards lent and advanced accordingly, and for which the Plaintiff gave the Defendant his promissory note, dated (ith October, 1819, [617] payable on demand for 20001., with interest, mentioning no rate-and that in the month of June, 1820, the Plaintiff was arrested, and held to bail at the suit of the Defendant for that sum, without tiny previous application to be repaid, and that the defendant had since declared on the said noto of hand. The bill then, after suggesting pretences, prayed that the Defendant might be interrogated as to the facts of the alleged agreement as to the rate of interest; and that the bill might be taken as a bill of discovery only : and for an injunction. It was alleged that no interest had been paid. The Defendant demurred-stating that it appeared by the bill that the Defendant lent the Plaintiff the sum of 20001., and that the scope and eud of the bill was to discover whether the Defendant did not lend the money on an usurious agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Langman v Handover
-
Barker v Walters
...was the ground on [95] which a demurrer was allowed in the cases of Mason v. Gardiner (4 Bro. C. C. 436) and IPTiitmwe v. Francis (8 Price, 616). Secondly. The persons composing the board of directors of the company ought to have been made parties to this bill. It does not allege that this ......
-
Wethered v Wethered
...copyhold were situate, or by some other ways or means would become entitled to such freehold and (1) 1 Atk. 450. tfhitmore v. Francis, 8 Price, 616. The note mentioned above was as follows:-" Whitman v. Francis, Excheq. 14th December 1820. Uill filed to discover whether a promissory note wa......