Unknown County MsArchives Court.....Loury, William Vs. John Loury 1834
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ms/msfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 2, 2008, 7:32 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases - Mississippi
Written: 1834

December Term 1825.

WILLIAM LOURY vs. JOHN LOURY.

A note dated 21st March, 1822, promising to pay a specified sum, being 
for "money loaned at forty per cent until paid," is sufficiently explicit as 
to the agreement of the borrower to pay interest at the rate of forty per cent 
per annum, and must be enforced under the then existing provision of the 
constitution of the state of Mississippi.

OPINION OF THE COURT - BY THE HON. EDWARD TURNER.

This is an action of debt, founded on a sealed note, made by the defendant 
payable to the plaintiff, to the following effect, to wit: "On demand, I 
promise to pay William Loury, or order, the just and full sum of three hundred 
dollars, the amount is money loaned at forty per cent until paid, bearing date 
the 21st March, 1822." The cause went to the jury on an issue to the plea of 
payment, verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the above debt, and 
damages to the amount of "forty per cent per annum," on the amount of the said 
debt, from the date of the note until paid. The defendant moved for a new 
trial, for the following reasons, to wit:

"1. Because the verdict was contrary to law and evidence.

 2. Because the jury gave a per centage per annum, greater than that allowed 
by law, and resorted to construction to do this. Whereas, the party should not 
be entitled to the benefit of a rule made by himself, and different from the 
rule made by law, unless the rule in the convention of the parties is not 
expressed, so as to supersede the necessity of construction, in order to give 
the party the benefit of a conventional rule with regard to interest? The 
constitution of this state, article 6, sec. 10, provides, that "The general 
assembly shall pass no law impairing the obligation of contracts, prior to the 
year 1821, on account of the rate of interest fairly agreed on in writing, 
between the contracting parties for a bona fide loan of money, but they shall 
have power to regulate the rate of interest, where no special contract exists 
in relation thereto." This provision in the constitution was in force at the 
date of the above note, and the only question in this case is, whether the 
note in question bears interest at the rate of forty per cent per annum. In 
construing contracts, the intention of the parties should be the governing 
principle, and it appears to the court that it was the contract and the 
intention of the parties that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the 
interest allowed by the jury, that this is one of the cases left by the 
constitution to the convention of the parties, and that their agreement and 
intention is sufficiently expressed in the writing.

Motion overruled, and judgment for the plaintiff.

Judges Hampton, Child and Black concurred.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court of Mississippi; 1818 - 1832; 
By R. J. Walker, Reporter of the State. Natchez: Printed at the Courier and 
Journal Office, 1834.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ms/unknown/court/loury98gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/msfiles/

File size: 3.6 Kb