
    John B. Clarke vs. Rufus Hastings.
    An answer by an indorser to an action on a promissory note does not sufficiently aver usury by averring that “ the plaintiff reserved a greater rate of interest than is allowed by law, at the time of discounting said note for the defendant, to wit,” a certain sum.
    Action of contract on a promissory note for $140 made by Andrew J. Waite on the 10th of April 1856, payable to the defendant in four months, and indorsed by the defendant.
    The defendant in his answer “ admits that he gave the note named in said process; but says that said plaintiff reserved a greater rate of interest than is allowed by law, at the time of discounting said note for said defendant, to wit, the sum of four dollars and fifty cents; and that a deduction from said note should be made as is in such cases made and provided.”
    The plaintiff demurred, “ because the defendant’s answer does not state in clear and precise terms from whom the plaintiff reserved a greater rate of interest than is allowed by law; or that it was reserved from the defendant; or the amount of interest illegally reserved by the plaintiff.”
    In the court of common pleas Perkins, J. sustained the demurrer, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed.
    
      P. C. Bacon G. Swan, for the plaintiff.
    
      W. A. Williams, for the defendant.
   By the Court.

The answer does not set forth any usurious contract made by the defendant with the plaintiff, nor any reservation of usurious interest by the plaintiff, with the certainty and precision requisite to enable the defendant to enforce the forfeiture. Demurrer sustained.  