
    HOVEY v. WARK-GILBERT CO.
    Usury — Corporations—Statutes—Bills and Notes — When Cause op Action Arose.
    Under Aet No. 335, Pub. Acts 1927, pt. 2, chap. 1, § 1, providing that “no corporation shall interpose defense of usury to any cause of action hereafter arising,” said defense is not available in action against corporation on note which became due after aet was in effect, since cause of action arose when note became due.
    Error to Wayne; Lamb (Fred S.), J., presiding.
    Submitted October 11, 1929.
    (Docket No. 65, Calendar No. 34,555.)
    Decided December 3, 1929.
    Assumpsit by Frank D. Hovey against WarkGilbert Company, a Michigan corporation, on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
    Affirmed.
    
      Kenneth M. Stevens, for plaintiff.
    
      James Gibbons, for defendant.
   Clark, J.

Plaintiff sued on the note of defendant, a Michigan corporation, due October 22, 1928, and had judgment which defendant reviews on error.

Act No. 335, Pub. Acts 1927, pt. 2, chap. 1, § 1, provided that “no corporation shall interpose the defense of usury to any cause of action hereafter arising.”

The cause' of action arose when the note became due. The act was then in effect. Defendant sought fo interpose the sole defense of usury. This the act forbids. Miller v. Reid, 243 Mich. 694.

Judgment affirmed.

North, C. J., and Fead, Butzel, Wiest, McDonald, Potter, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.  