Hunt v. Bell

3 Citing cases

  1. Calkin v. Roberts Park F.P. Dist

    76 N.E.2d 43 (Ill. 1947)   Cited 3 times

    The rule is that where the statute or a rule of court prescribes that notice be given but does not designate the character of service, the courts will construe it as requiring personal service. (Haj v. American Bottle Co. 261 Ill. 362. ) As to the requirements of notice of the filing of a motion for writ of error coram nobis, see Hunt v. Bell, 257 Ill. App. 432; Barnes v. Chicago City Railway Co. 185 Ill. App. 148. The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to stay action for a reasonable time for the appellants to bring proper parties before the court. If appellants do not elect to bring the necessary parties into court, then their petition should be dismissed.

  2. Easton v. Butterfield Live Stock Co.

    48 Idaho 153 (Idaho 1929)   Cited 25 times

    n additional sum, the extra payment is not regarded as interest for the use of money but as a means to enforce punctual payment and as a penalty for default. Where a debtor may relieve himself by payment or performance of his obligation according to its terms, a contract providing for a higher and even an excessive rate after maturity or default is not regarded as usurious. (2 Page on Contracts, secs. 972, 973, p. 1721 et seq.; 27 R. C. L. 232, 234; 39 Cyc. 954; Tipton v. Ellsworth, 18 Idaho 207, 109 P. 134; Goodale v. Wallace, 19 S.D. 405, 117 Am. St. 962, 9 Ann. Cas. 545, 103 N.W. 651; Ward's Admrs. v. Cornett, 91 Va. 676, 22 S.E. 494, 49 L.R.A. 550, and note; State v. Elliott, 61 Kan. 518, 59 P. 1047; Law Guarantee Trust Society, Ltd., v. Hogue, 37 Or. 544, 62 Pac. 380, 63 P. 690; Blake v. Yount, 42 Wn. 101, 114 Am. St. 106, 7 Ann. Cas. 487, 84 P. 625; Cissna Loan Co. v. Gawley, supra; Sanford v. Lichtenberger, 62 Neb. 501, 87 N.W. 305; Havemeyer v. Paul, 45 Neb. 373, 63 N.W. 932; Hunt v. Bell, 129 Ark. 167, 195 S.W. 362; Upton v. O'Donahue, 32 Neb. 565, 49 N.W. 267.) Whether, if the increased rate after maturity would return to the borrower a profit in excess of the statutory limit over the period of the loan and indulgence, the excess would be treated as an unenforceable penalty is not involved in this case for, as we have seen, the bondholders did not realize more than the lawful maximum. Respondent did not attempt to enforce the payment of the unmatured coupons.

  3. State ex Rel. Zoolog. Board v. City of St. Louis

    318 Mo. 910 (Mo. 1928)   Cited 25 times
    In State ex rel. Zoological Board of Control v. City of St. Louis, 318 Mo. 910, 1 S.W.2d 1021, 1025-1026[3, 4], the establishment of a zoological park was held to be in the public interest and welfare and not strictly for a local purpose.

    State ex rel. v. Mason, 153 Mo. 23; State ex rel. v. St. Louis, 241 Mo. 231. (f) It does not violate Section 53 of Article 4 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Miller, 100 Mo. 447; Hunt v. Bell, 190 Mo. 70; State ex rel. v. Hedrick, 294 Mo. 21; State ex rel. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 279; State v. Keating, 202 Mo. 197; State ex rel. v. Speed, 183 Mo. 186. (g) It does not violate Section 7 of Article 9 of the Constitution. State ex rel. v. Mason, 155 Mo. 501; Kansas City v. Stegmiller, 151 Mo. 189. (4) Respondents cannot excuse or justify their refusal.