This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1875. Excerpt: ... Hemery, et al. v. Marksberry, et al. James Hemert, Respondent, vs. Lynn B. Mabksbekry, / Daniel Smoote and Ira Baoon, Appellants. 1. Promissory note--Agreement for extension--Surety, how affected by, etc.--An agreement between the principal and payee of a promissory note, made at or after maturity, for an extension, in order to discharge a surety thereon, must be a valid and binding: agreement which would deprive the payee of the power to sue until after the period of extension; but a mere indulgence, without any consideration passing, would have no such effect. 2. Promissory notes--Suretyship--Agreement for usurious interest, etc.--Generally, where the holder nnikes with the principal maker a binding contract which varies the terms of a note, without the consent of the surety, the holder knowing of the suretyship, the latter is discharged. But this rule does not cover the ease of an agreement without any consideration for the payment of interest at more than ten per cent, where payment was made to depend simply on the personal honor of the maker of the paper. 8. Usurious interest on note--Contract void, how far--Schools--Conxtrucd statute.--A contract for usurious interest on a note does not render the note void in toto, but only as to interest upon the amount actually loaned, the legal interest being recoverable for the use of the common schools. (Wagu. Stat. 7S3, 5.) Appeal from Daviess Circuit Court. IV. M. Hush, for Appellants. I. Where a promissory note is given upon a consideration that is illegal, or is prohibited-by statute in whole or in part, such note is void in the hands of the payee thereof. (Pars. Notes & Bills, 212-217; Pars. Contr., 456; Chitty Bills, 92, 93, 99; 8 Cow., 19,20; Johns., 1.) II. If the payee, with knowledge of the suretyshi...