
    Nathaniel Norton, Plaintiff in Error, v. The Merchants’ Loan and Trust Company, Defendant in Error.
    ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OP CHICAGO.
    When the court below is asked, as a favor, to allow a plea of usury to be filed, and in the exercise of its discretion refuses, the Supreme Court will not interfere.
    
      This was an action of assumpsit agáinst the guarantor of a promissory note, brought in the Superior Court of Chicago, by the defendant in error against the plaintiff in error. The plaintiff in error pleaded the general issue, with five special pleas. The plaintiff in error also ashed permission to file additional pleas, setting forth that the note sued on had been discounted at a usurious rate of interest. The court refused leave to file additional pleas. There was a trial, verdict and judgment for defendant in error.
    B. T. Merrick:, for Plaintiff in Error.
    Farwell & Smith, for Defendant in Error.
   Catoh, C. J.

When the court is ashed, as a favor, to allow the plea of usury to be filed, and in the exercise of its discretion refuses, we will not interfere. But in this case, we thinh it was most properly refused. The case clearly shows that there was no corrupt agreement, no usury was bargained for, but the clerh in computing the interest which was agreed upon at the legal rate, made a mistahe, hence the note was for too much, not of interest any more than of principal. Besides, the plaintiff remitted the excess, which was put in by mistahe of the clerh.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  