Young v. Scott
Court of Appeals of Virginia
This was an appeal from the Richmond Chancery Court. Scott had obtained a judgment at law against Young, for 750 dollars, with interest and costs, as endorser of a negotiable note, executed by Dabney. A forth-coming bond was given, and forfeited, and judgment obtained on it. Young then filed a bill in Chancery to injoin this judgment, on the ground of usury.
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from the Richmond Chancery Court. Scott had obtained a judgment at law against Young, for 750 dollars, with interest and costs, as endorser of a negotiable note, executed by Dabney. A forth-coming bond was given, and forfeited, and judgment obtained on it. Young then filed a bill in Chancery to injoin this judgment, on the ground of usury. The bill states, that the complainant became the endorser of Dabney on a note for 750 dollars, payable at the expiration of fifty days, which was delivered to Scott for the consideration of 712 dollars and 50 cents, which Dabney had…
1Opinion of the Court
Judge Carr.
It is a fundamental principle with Courts of Equity, that no man shall be forced to accuse himself; nemo tenetur prodere seipsum. In conformity with this maxim, those Courts have constantly held that a defendant may demur to a bill, calling on him to answer any matter which may subject him to fine, forfeiture, pains or penalties. Where the forfeiture or penalty is entirely in the power of the plaintiff, if in his bill he waives it, the defendant cannot demur, but must answer. The English Statute of Usury subjected the usurious lender of money, &c. to the loss of the sum lent. This,…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Davis v. DemmingWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Spann v. SternsTexas Supreme Court · 1857
- Logan v. BallardWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1907
- Munford v. McVeigh'sSupreme Court of Virginia · 1896
- Spengler v. SnappSupreme Court of Virginia · 1834
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.