#### Andrew Chrisman v. Garr et al.

b Verdict auainst evidence. — As plaintiff in error claimed the benefit of a credit from the sale of the chattel mortgage, and was entitled to it under the pleadings and proofs, and no good reason is shown why it was not allowed him, the judgment is reversed.

2. Usury. — Where a note was made in the State of Indiana and was not shown to have been usurious by the laws of that State, the plea of usury was not sustained.

*406Error to the Circuit Court of Edgar county; the Hon. J. W. Wilkin, Judge, presiding.

Opinion filed February 5, 1884.

Mr. Bobert L. MoKinlay and Mr. Henry S. Tanner, for plaintiff in error;

that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, cited Booth v. Hynes, 54 Ill. 363; Southworth v. Hoag, 42 Ill. 446.

Messrs. Sellar & Dole, for defendants in error.

Higbee, J.

Plaintiff in error executed and delivered to defendants in error on June 11, 1880, his promissory note for $497 and secured the same by a chattel mortgage on an engine and separator. On the trial of this cause, which was a suit brought on the note, a judgment was rendered against plaintiff in error for the full amount of the note and interest thereon, notwithstanding the undisputed fact, as it appears by the record, that before the suit was commenced, defendants in error had taken possession of the mortgaged property, sold it under the mortgage, and bought it themselves at the sale for the sum of $695. Plaintiff in error claimed the benefit- of this credit on the trial of the cause and was entitled to it under the pleadings and proofs, and no good reason is shown why it was not allowed him.

The plea of usury was not sustained. The note was made in the State of Indiana and it was not shown to have been usurious by the laws of that State.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Beversed and remanded.