Turpin v. Sledd's Ex'or
Turpin v. Sledd's Ex'or
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The court is of opinion that the bond upon which this suit was brought, is an obligation to pay a certain sum, that is 2,400 -dollars, in money, that is to say, gold or silver, meaning gold or silver coin, not bullion. The
Hpon the second assignment of errors, the court is of opinion that the judgment of the court below, on the special verdict, is correct. The doctrine is well settled, that upon the plea of usury, the onus lies upon the defendants. The statute of . usury being highly penal, strict proof is required. Brockenbrough's ex'ors v. Spindle's adm'rs, 17 Gratt, p. 21. In this case the defendant has failed to show that the consideration of the bond, . or any part of it, is usurious. And the defendant in error, by his counsel, having waived any right he may have to. a judgment for gold or its equivalent; and having withdrawn his assignment of error, that the court below did not render such, judgment, the court is of opinion that there is no error in the record for which the judgment should be reversed. Let it be affirmed.
Judgment appirmed.
Reference
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. T. executes his bond to S. by which on demand he promises to pay to S. in gold or silver or the equivalent thereof, $2,400. This is a promise to pay 82,400 in gold or silver coin or the equivalent thereof ; and debt may be maintained upon it. 2. The bond was dated in May 1S60, and the consideration proved was a debt due before the war of uncertain amount, and $1,670 in United States currency adv meed at the date of the bond, when this currency was as 129 1-8 for gold and 121 for silver. As it does not appear what was the amount of the ante-war debt, usury is not proved.