81e FEDEBAIi BKPOBTEB. �waiyed, if such right ever existed. But the right exista only when the payment is usury, and I do not see why the $16 may not be regarded as so much paid by way of interest in advance, rather than have the agreement faU for want of consideration, though I have treated the payment as usury, as was claimed and argued on both sides. Lee's letter to plaintiff, expressing a hope that he would "not make any expense," does not appear to have been acted on by plaintiEf; but, I infer from facts in the case, he did make expense by suit subsequent to the date of Lee's letter, which suit was dis- continued after the agreement to extend the payment. How- ever that may be, the letter is not consent to an agreement to extend the day of payment for a year, and does not pre- vent Lee from insisting on the defence that he is discharged. Judgment of no cause of action will be entered in favor of defendants Lee and King, and in fayor of plaintiff, and against ail other defendants, for |l,99e.oe damages, and for oosts of suit, to be taxed. ���WiLBUB V. Abbot. �Idreuit Court, D. New Bampshire. October 12, 1880. �1. Suit o» Fohbign Jddgmbnt— Axlegatiok of Bbbvicb on Non-Rksi- �PBNT DBPENDAHTS AND TbrIIS OF doHTBACT. �In a declaration on a judgment against A. and B., rendered in th» fifth district court of the city of New Orleans, a court of general juris- diction, it was field : �(1) That A. and B. being residents of New Hampshire when the judgment was rendered, failure of the plaintiff to allege that they were duly served with notice of the suit, or that they appeared and answered thereto, made the declaration demurrable. �(2) That failure to set forth the terras, nature, or date of the con- tract on which such judgment was founded, or the place of making such judgment, was no ground of demurrer. �Motion to Amend Declaration. Sawyer e Sawyer, Jr., for plaintiff. S. G. Eastman, for defendant. ��� �
