Raphael J. Moses, Jr., Appellant v. John R. McDivitt, Respondent

Summary

The Court held that an attorney’s purchase of a bond is prohibited by § 71 only when the primary purpose is to bring a suit; incidental intent is insufficient, and in this case the purchase was for coercing stock assignment, not for suit. The Court also held that a judgment entered to evade usury does not bar the usury defense. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered.