Scruggs v. Luster
Tennessee Supreme Court
PROM GREENE. Appeal from the Chancery Court at Greeneville. The transcript does not show what Chancellor presided when the decree passed. cited Barton v. Kilgore, MS., to show that a note given in renewal of one which provides on its face for payment of usury, would not be illegal. Agent or bailee could not receive Confederate notes. Shurer v. Green, 3 Cold., 419. If die payor was discharged, the payee would be liable.
Read the full summary
PROM GREENE. Appeal from the Chancery Court at Greeneville. The transcript does not show what Chancellor presided when the decree passed. cited Barton v. Kilgore, MS., to show that a note given in renewal of one which provides on its face for payment of usury, would not be illegal. Agent or bailee could not receive Confederate notes. Shurer v. Green, 3 Cold., 419. If die payor was discharged, the payee would be liable. Adding usury unto note only affects the part, not the whole; King’s Dig., Tit. Usury. Act of 1860, made note, not for loaned money, void, if it bore more than six per cent.…
1Opinion of the CourtTuuney, J.
The decree of the Chancellor is erroneous. The facts necessary to be noticed are: In 1861 the complainant held a note on defendant Luster for the sum of seven hundred and forty-three dollars and five cents, bearing interest at the rate of ten per cent., due 2d January, 1861; the date of the note does not appear, but from the proof in the record, it had been executed a considerable length of time prior to its maturity. To induce defendant Abijah Scruggs, to become security for the prosecution of a suit in the Circuit Court of Greene County, complainant placed in his hands the note as…
2Cited by1 opinion
- First National Bank of Lenoir City v. IvieCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1955