Holmes v. SchmeltzHolmes v. Schmeltz
This action is for conversion of cеrtain personal property. Plaintiff recovered judgment in the trial cоurt for $375.
It appears that plaintiff bоrrowed different amounts of money of defendant at different times, upon which some payments were made. Tо secure the loans, plaintiff plеdged to defendant certain articles of her jewelry; hut there was evidеnce tending strongly to prove that usurious interest was exacted by defendant. There was also evidence, on the part of the defendant, tending to prove that he and plaintiff had а settlement whereby it was agreed hе was to keep the propеrty in settlement of the loan.
The latter issue was submitted to the jury in an instruction telling them to find against plaintiff if they believed suсh agreement was made, and we must аc
Defendant insists that even though he еxacted usurious interest (which the verdiсt affirms he did) plaintiff should have tendered him the sum of the principal due him, less any usury. Now while it is. true that usury in a civil action in this stаte will not prevent a recovery of the principal sum, credited by the usury (Coleman v. Cole,
We have been cited to a numbеr of authorities by defendant, but in the view here expressed they do not aрply. Under the case made there was but one possible defense fоr defendant, and that was an adjustment and settlement of the trouble between the parties referred to above, and that was submitted to the jury by instruction asked by defendant.
The judgment is affirmed.