Heyward v. Williams
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Before Aldrich, J., Beaufort, June, 1901. Action by A. H. Heyward against C. A. Williams, A. S. Williams, H. M. Comer & Co., Wulbern & Co., M. Hornick & Co., Phillips & Meyers, J. B. Eowenburg, Pincus & Co. and John K. Garnett.
Read the full summary
Before Aldrich, J., Beaufort, June, 1901. Action by A. H. Heyward against C. A. Williams, A. S. Williams, H. M. Comer & Co., Wulbern & Co., M. Hornick & Co., Phillips & Meyers, J. B. Eowenburg, Pincus & Co. and John K. Garnett. From judgment for plaintiff, defendants, C. A. and A. S. Williams, appeal. cite: There is no express agreement to pay ten per cent, interest before maturity of note: 18 Stat., 35; 26 S. C., 525; 34 S. C., 179; 30 S. C., 61. Counter-claim is not barred: 18 Stat., 36'; 49 S. C., 358; 58 S. C., 242; 30 S. C., 61. Application of payments in cases of usury: 141 U. S-, 384;…
1Opinion of the Court
' The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Jones.
The complaint herein was to foreclose a mortgage, and the answer, among other matters, alleged that usurious interest had been charged and received, and interposed a counter-claim for double the alleged usurious interest collected. The Circuit Court held that no usury-had been charged and collected, and gave judgment for foreclosure for the amount claimed by plaintiff. The defendants now appeals upon exceptions challenging the correctness of such judgment. The facts are that on November 15th, 1886, the defendant, C. A. Williams,…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Tate v. LenhardtSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1818
- Cooke v. YoungSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1911