Cox v. . Brookshire
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Usury — Compound interest r- Evidence. Civil ActioN, tried at Spring Term, 1876, of RANDOLPH Superior Court, before Kerr, J. The plaintiff demanded payment of $2,696.99, due by several notes. The defendant admitted the execution of the notes, but resisted payment upon the ground that the contract was usurious.
Read the full summary
Usury — Compound interest r- Evidence. Civil ActioN, tried at Spring Term, 1876, of RANDOLPH Superior Court, before Kerr, J. The plaintiff demanded payment of $2,696.99, due by several notes. The defendant admitted the execution of the notes, but resisted payment upon the ground that the contract was usurious. The defendant testified in substance; that plaintiff and he had been partners in business; that he bought the interest of plaintiff and executed the notes sued on in consideration of the purchase; “ that the agreement between them was that the interest should be paid at the rate of six…
1Opinion of the CourtRodmaN, J.
The statements of the two parties who were-examined as witnesses differed widely as to what their contract was. As it was stated to be by the plaintiff' it was not usurious. As stated by the defendant we think it was. The Judge instead of leaving it to the jury upon the-conflicting evidence as to what the contract was, instructed them in effect that even if they believed the contract to have been as stated by the defendant it was not usurious. Ve think: he misconceived the decision in Bledsoe v. Nixon, 69 N. C. 89. It was held in that case that on an agreement to pay the interest annually, if…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bledsoe v. . Nixon .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1873
3Cited by2 opinions
- Scott v. . FisherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1892
- Russell v. . HearneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893