Ragan v. . Stephens
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal by plaintiff from Kerr, J., at March Term, 1919, of Chatham. This is an action on three notes, one for $903 being the only one as to which any question is raised by the appeal. The defendant pleaded usury, and the jury found that $100 of the $903 note is usurious. The defendant has paid nothing to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Appeal by plaintiff from Kerr, J., at March Term, 1919, of Chatham. This is an action on three notes, one for $903 being the only one as to which any question is raised by the appeal. The defendant pleaded usury, and the jury found that $100 of the $903 note is usurious. The defendant has paid nothing to the plaintiff. His Honor rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $903 without interest, subject to a credit of $200, being double the amount of the usury charged in the note, and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.
1Opinion of the CourtAlleN, J.
The statute relating to usury (Bev., sec. 1951) makes a clear distinction between money charged and money paid on a usurious transaction.
As to the first, the penalty is the elimination of the usury and the forfeiture of the interest; and as to the second, when usurious interest is actually paid, the additional penalty of recovery of double the amount of the usury.
This is not only the plain language of the statute but it is the construction placed upon it in several of our decisions.
In Rushing v. Rivens, 132 N. C., 273, the Court says: “We think that before the plaintiff can maintain the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Pritchard v. . MeekinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
- Rushing v. Bivens.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- Stedman Qui Tam v. BlandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1844
- Godfrey v. . LeighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1846
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hill v. . LindsaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
- McNeill v. . SuggsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1930