Legal Opinion
Clark v. Kaiser Agricultural Chemicals
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided October 23, 1980No. 60509PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Deen, Chief Judge.
1. The defense of usury is personal to the debtor. Code § 57-103. It may not be urged save by the borrower or his privies. Scott v. Williams, 100 Ga. 540 (28 SE 243) (1897); Swift v. Wellington Plaza, Inc., 213 Ga. 377, 380 (99 SE2d 68) (1957). “A debtor who has had his day in court will not be heard, after judgment, to attack the levy of the execution on the ground that his debt was infected with usury.” Wilkinson v. Holton, 119 Ga. 557 (2) (46 SE 620) (1903). One who has an opportunity to set up the defense of usury and fails to do so is concluded by the judgment. Swift v.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Wilkinson v. HoltonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1904
- Bush v. Bank of ThomasvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1900
- Camp v. FIDELITY BANKERS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
- Scott v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1897
- Swift v. DederickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Shepherd v. Metropolitan Property & Liability InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
- GEORGIA FILM PROPERTY RENTALS, LLC v. PENNYLANE FUNDING, LLCCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2023
- Ideal Loan & Finance Corp. v. LittleCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1995
- Plowden v. Peoples Financial Corp. (In re Pair)District Court, D. Georgia · 1981