
    Luther A. Hall and another vs. A. Reed.
    When a replication puts in issue the whole merits of the plea, after a yerdict by the jury or a finding by the Court, the judgment will not be disturbed though the replication may be informal.
    The Supreme Court will not reverse the judgment of the Common Pleas, for error in refusing to grant a new trial, unless the bill of exceptions discloses the whole testimony.
    This is a Writ or Error to the Supreme Court of Seneca County.
    The original action was Assumpsit, commenced in the Court of Common Pleas, by the defendant in error, upon two notes executed by the plaintiffs in error, one for $255 23, the other for $260 53.
    The pleas were the general issue, and a special plea in averring that the original consideration of these notes was a note for $500 executed to said Luther A. Hall, that Hall transferred said note to the Mechanic’s Saving’s Institute of Columbus, that said notes were given to take up said $500 note, and were the property of said Saving’s Institute, and contained usurious interest.
    The replication, with a protestando as to usurious interest, &c., traversed the averment that the notes were the property of said Institute, and averred that they were the property of the plaintiff, concluding to the country.
    The case was submitted to the Court, and both issues found for the plaintiff.
    Thereupon a motion was made for a new trial upon the ground that the evidence did not warrant the finding, and that the replication was no answer to the plea; which motion was overruled.
    A writ of error was sued out from the Supreme Court, and the judgment of the Common Pleas affirmed.
    To reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court this writ is prosecuted, the errors assigned being the same in substance as those assigned in the Supreme Court, on the circuit. s
    
      Watson 8f- Johnson, for Plaintiffs in Error.
    
      W. R. Noble, for Defendant.
   Read, J.

The plea in substance was that the Saving’s Bank had taken illegal interest, and the notes were consequently void.

The replication in effect denied all this, and insisted that the notes were the property of the plaintiff. So the Court found. After verdict we will not reverse a judgment for mere lack of form, where the whole merits have been put in issue and determined. But in this case the replication is sufficient even in form.

As to the motion for a new trial, whether that was rightly overruled or not depends upon the facts. These are disclosed in a long bill of exceptions, which does not state that it exhibits all the evidence.

I am not disposed to argue out the facts, but simply content myself with saying that we are not satisfied from any thing appearing upon the record, that the Court erred in their finding.

Judgment affirmed.  