53 Neb. 92 | Neb. | 1897
This cause was commenced in the county court of Furnas county, where the plaintiff in error sued to recover from the defendant in error as maker of a promissory note for |500, bearing date of March 14, 1891, and payable March 14, 1892, with interest from date, to the order of “J. W. Tomblin, Pt.” A trial upon issue joined resulted in a judgment for the defendant, from which an appeal was prosecuted to the district court, where, to the petition in the usual form in like actions, an answer was interposed in which it was alleged that the First National Bank of Arapahoe was the real party in interest, and that in the execution and delivery of the note in suit, as well as in the several antecedent transactions furnishing the pretended consideration therefor, the plaintiff acted as the trustee for said bank. Said allegation was accompanied by a statement in detail of the transactions between the defendant and the bank, resulting "in the execution of this note, which are in brief the loaning by the latter to the former of a large sum of money at a usurious rate of interest, the renewal from time to time of the notes given therefor at a usurious rate of interest, and the payment upon said notes and renewals thereof of a sum largely exceeding the money loaned. It was further expressly charged that the note in suit was given for usurious interest which had accrued on the original loan and renewal notes given therefor, and for no other or different consideration whatever. The plaintiff replied, (1) denying the allegations of the answer except such as were therein confessed; (2) alleging that the note in suit was given for a part of the balance found
It is, in the view we take of the record, necessary to notice a single one of the several questions argued by counsel, viz., that of the consideration for the note which is the subject of this controversy. If, as contended by defendant, the sole and only consideration therefor is interest on his apparent indebtedness to the bank, being
The evidence bearing upon the question under discussion is somewhat confusing, and involves transactions so numerous and intricate as to render even the briefest possible synopsis thereof impracticable in this connection. There certainly is evidence tending to sustain the contention that the note represents interest on the usurious loau, and positive proof that it is otherwise without any consideration whatever. We are unable to perceive any sufficient ground .for interference with the finding of the district court.
Judgment affirmed.