Collier v. . Nevill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Debt upon a single bond, executed by the defendants to James Mitchell and Alexander Cheek, and by them assigned to the plaintiff. Plea — the statute of 1741 (Rev. c. 28) “ for restraining the taking of excessive usury.”
Read the full summary
Debt upon a single bond, executed by the defendants to James Mitchell and Alexander Cheek, and by them assigned to the plaintiff. Plea — the statute of 1741 (Rev. c. 28) “ for restraining the taking of excessive usury.” On the trial before his Honor Judge Swain, at Orange, on the last spring circuit, a verdict was entered for the plaintiff, subject, to the opinion of the court, upon the following case : The defendants executed the bond on which the action was brought, upon a bona-fide consideration, moving from Mitchell and Cheek to them. Afterwards, the obligees, Mitchell and Cheek sold the…
1Opinion of the Court
-HupfiN, Judge
—
The court does not entertain a doubt, that the transaction between the plaintiff and Mi tchell and Cheek is usurious.. The discounting'of a bill,or bond, and taking-the general endorsement of the holder, does ex vi tcrnlini constitute a loan •, and if. the rate of discount exceed that fixed by the statute, it is an usurious loan.; It is said, non constat, that these parties knew that the endorsers were hound thereby; without which there was no corruption. It is to be taken, they knew it; and that the indoi’sement expresses their contract, until the contrary, -as a mistake in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Munn v. President & Directors of Commission Co.New York Supreme Court · 1818
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ward v. . SuggSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1893
- Tillman v. TalbertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1956
- Pratt v. American Bond & Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1928
- Pinnix v. . Casualty Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
- Sedbury v. . DuffySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1912
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.