Legal Opinion

Guaranty Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Fair Promise A. M. E. Zion Church

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 9, 1941PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The question for decision is whether the release of 13 December, 1928, estops the defendants from setting up usury in the original transaction. The answer is “No.”

True, the decisions are to the effect that an abandonment of the usurious agreement and the execution of a new obligation for the amount of the original debt, eliminating the usury and providing for the payment thereafter of legal interest, purges the original usury, and renders the second obligation valid and enforceable. Hill v. Lindsay, 210 N. C., 694, 188 S. E., 406; Beck v. Bank, 161 N. C., 201, 76 S. E., 722; Ector v. Osborne,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hill v. . LindsaySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1936
  2. MacRackan v. . BankSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
  3. Ector v. OsborneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  4. Ector v. . OsborneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1920
  5. Beck v. Bank of ThomasvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Henderson v. SECURITY MORTAGAGE AND FINANCE CO.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. State Ex Rel. Cooper v. NCCS Loans, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005
  3. Haanebrink v. MeyerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
  4. Overton v. TarkingtonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  5. State ex rel. Cooper v. Nccs Loans, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2005

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API