Bank of Lumpkin County v. Justus
Supreme Court of Georgia
Complaint — equitable amendment. Before Judge Jones. Union superior court. June 14, 1919. This ease (a suit upon a note) was converted into an equitable action by an amendment to the petition, praying for reformation of the instrument sued on.
1Opinion of the CourtFish, C. J.
1. It is lawful to include in a promissory note the amount of interest at the legal rate, which will be due at its maturity, and to provide that the sum represented by the principal and such interest shall bear interest at eight per cent, -per annum from maturity. *287McCrary v. Woodward, 122 Ga. 793 (50 S. E. 941). But if the amount of interest so included in the note exceeds the legal rate, as provided in the Civil Code, § 3436, and is inserted in the note by the lender for the purpose of evading the laws against usury, the instrument will be usurious. Bellerly v. Goodwyn, 112 Ga. 306 (37 S. E.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Bellerby v. GoodwynSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Loganville Banking Co. v. ForresterSupreme Court of Georgia · 1915
- Trammell v. Swift Fertilizer WorksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Bank of St. Marys v. Mumford & TysonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
- Buck v. Bank of StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Partridge v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1987
- Dye v. RichardsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1954
- Lovelady v. MossCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1935
- Seymour v. Bank of ThomasvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1923
- Kent v. Hibernia Savings, Building & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.