and numerous cases all through our reports. The reason why the Court should be allowed an opportunity to review its finding by motion for a new trial, seems to us equally strong as that in support of its reviewing a verdict. For as the Court is not ordinarily the tribunal to try facts, it would seem as liable to error in that direction, as the jury in the application of the law. Both upon principle, therefore, and to preserve the rules unembarrassed by exceptions, where such exceptions do not seem essential, we adhere to the former decision. The rule is, that in every instance, unless where the statute has made the exception, the Court must be called upon, by motion for a new trial, to review alike its own finding or the verdict of a jury, before the evidence can be regarded as properly a part of the record. The reason of the rule is too clear, and has been too often announced to need further exposition. Per Curiam.-The petition is overruled. C. Baker, for the appellant. J. G. Jones and J. E. Blythe, for the appellees. May Term, 1856. ELMER V. CRUM. ELMER V. CRUM. Under the statutes of 1843 and 1845, usurious interest paid on one or more of several notes cannot be pleaded as a set-off in a suit on the other notes. Illegal interest so paid is not recoverable by action, but becomes the property of the payee. APPEAL from the Wayne Circuit Court. DAVISON, J.-This was assumpsit, commenced on the 9th of July, 1852, by Elmer against Crum, upon two promissory notes, each dated July the 16th, 1852; one for the payment of 600 dollars, at thirty-one months, and Saturday, June 7. May Term, the other for 550 dollars, at 43 months. Pleas, 1. The 1856. ELMER V. CRUM. general issue. 2. Payment. 3. Set-off. made on the second and third pleas. Issues were The facts of this case are these: Crum, prior to the 15th of February, 1841, had become the security of one A. G. Hannah, upon a note for 2,000 dollars, payable to Elmer. At that date Crum lifted Hannah's note, and gave his own note for the payment of the 2,000 dollars, with ten per centum per annum interest. Before the 15th of July, 1842, Crum paid 20 dollars of the interest, and on that day gave his note to Elmer for the additional sum of 188 dollars and 33 and one-third cents, with interest at ten per centum, in payment of the first year's interest on the 2,000 dollars. Pursuant to an agreement made between Elmer and Crum, relative to the note of 1841, Crum, on the 16th of July, 1842, executed to Elmer four promissory notes, as follows: one note for 700 dollars, due February 15, 1843, embracing one-fourth of the original note of 2,000 dollars, and interest on 2,000 dollars from the 15th of February, 1842, until it was due; one note for 650 dollars, payable on the 15th of February, 1844, which included the one-fourth of said original sum and interest, on 1,500 dollars for one year; one note for 600 dollars, due February 15th, 1845, embracing another one-fourth of the 2,000 dollars, and interest on 1,000 dollars for one year after the 15th of February, 1844; and one note for 550 dollars, payable February 15th, 1846, which also embraced one-fourth of the above original amount, and interest on 500 dollars for one year. The notes for 188 dollars and 33 and onethird cents, 700 dollars, and 650 dollars, were fully paid and lifted before the institution of this suit; and upon the trial the defendant gave them in evidence in support of his defense. Those for 600 dollars, and 550 dollars, are the notes sued on. They are subject to the following credits: June the 26th, 1846, 149 dollars; August the 10th, 1847, 500 dollars; April the 1st, 1850, 47 dollars; January the 2d, 1851, 100 dollars. The cause was submitted to the Court, who found for the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, but his motion was overruled, and final judgment was given against him, &c. The notes in suit, as well as those given in evidence in support of the defense, were, no doubt, all tainted with usury; because, when they were executed, the statutory rate of interest was only six per centum per annum. Acts of 1842, p. 91. And the evidence shows that each of them was intended to secure the payment of a rate of interest above that authorized by law. It appears that the Court, under the plea of set-off, allowed the several amounts of interest paid by the defendant on the three notes which he had lifted, and which he gave in evidence. This, it is contended, was erroneous. In the revision of 1843, chapter 31, section 29, it is provided that whenever, in any action brought, &c., it shall appear, &c., that a greater rate of interest has been directly or indirectly reserved, &c., than is allowed by law, the defendant shall recover his full costs, &c., and the plaintiff shall only recover judgment for the principal sum due him, without interest thereon; or, if he shall have taken or received such interest, or any part thereof, before the rendition of such judgment, the same shall be deducted from the principal sum, and judgment shall be rendered for the balance as above. Section 30, of the same chapter, provides that, "Any person who shall have paid a greater amount of interest than is allowed, &c., may recover against the person who may have taken the same, the whole amount of interest which he may have paid, if such action be brought within a year after the payment." Under section 29, above quoted, the defendant was entitled to a rebatement of the notes sued on, to an amount equal to the interest which they embraced; but, such rebatement being made, the credits on these notes would still not be a full payment of their principal sums. Hence, we are led to inquire whether it was competent for him to set off against these sums the amount of interest paid by him when he lifted the other notes. If the amounts thus paid were recoverable under section 30, to May Term, 1856. ELMER V. CRUM. 1856. ST. JOHN V. May Term, which we have referred, they would be a legitimate setoff against the notes in suit; but there is an act of 1845 which provides, "That if any person has paid any inHARRINGTON. terest unlawfully contracted for, &c., no action shall be maintained for the recovery thereof." Acts of 1845, p. 12. This provision is in direct conflict with the section just named, and decides the point under consideration. Each note must be held a distinct contract. The illegal interest paid on the notes lifted, became the property of Elmer, because it was not recoverable by action, and could not, therefore, be made the subject of set-off in the present suit. Milburn v. Guyther, 8 Gill, 91.-Morrison v. Gliddon, 7 Ind. R. 561. We think a new trial should have been granted. Per Curiam.-The judgment is reversed with costs. C. H. Test and J. M. Wilson, for the appellant. Saturday, ST. JOHN and Others v. HARRINGTON and Others. Under section 23, R. S. 1843, p. 767, attaching creditors, having obtained judgment at law, must proceed at law; and the question, whether the garnishee has illegally disposed of the attached property, after service of the writ of attachment, is triable at law and not in equity. ERROR to the Vigo Circuit Court. Per Curiam.-In chancery. Harrington entered into a contract with the Board of Trustees of the Wabash and Erie Canal, whereby, for a consideration, he agreed to excavate and construct certain portions of the canal designated as sections 65, 66, 68, 57, 155, 156. Said contract contained the following stipulation: "When in the opinion of the trustees it may be necessary to secure the laborers employed on the jobs herein contracted their wages, and the trustees may think justice May Term, 1856. ST. JOHN requires it, they are hereby authorized to pay said laborers the amount of their claims against their employer, whether he be the principal or a sub-contractor, and the receipts of the laborers for payments so made HARRIngton. shall be good against such employer." The trustees, on the 15th of December, 1849, owed Harrington, on account of work done on the above sections, 4,559 dollars. Of this sum John H. Hager, the then disbursing agent of said board, paid Harrington 500 dollars. Also, at his request, the agent paid one Sullivan 160 dollars, leaving a balance in the agent's hands of 3,894 dollars. These payments were made at the above date; but afterwards, on the same day, Harrington gave to the parties who filed the original bill in this case various orders on said agent for the payment of money, viz., an order to Groverman and Bourne for 1,863 dollars, one to Bement & Co. for 562 dollars, and another to Beymer and Graff for 36 dollars. These orders were accepted; and for the recovery of the several sums of money, therein specified, this suit was instituted. After this, Harrington, having absconded and left the State, Rufus St. John sued out against him a writ of foreign attachment, which was served on said trustees. on the 19th of December, 1849. Under this writ, seven persons, alleging themselves to be creditors of Harrington, filed their respective claims against him. These creditors, with St. John and the trustees of the canal, are made defendants. The bill alleges that the board of trustees, by reason of the conflicting claims of the complainants and the plaintiffs in the attachment, refuse to pay, &c. The defendants, who were the attaching creditors, answered, and filed their cross bill praying relief against the complainants and the trustees, and the latter answered. It appeared that those defendants who claim under the attachment, had, on the said 15th of December, notified Hager, the disbursing agent, of their demands against Harrington. This notice, however, was not given until after the above orders were accepted. It appeared also, that the trustees, after ser V. |