Legal Opinion

Briggs v. Industrial Bank of Richmond

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 24, 1929PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeogdeN, J.

If a note secured by a mortgage or deed of trust is tainted with usury, can the makers thereof have the usurious element adjudged a cloud upon the title and removed under the provisions of C. S., 1743 ?

The remedy prescribed by law for usurious transactions is thus stated in Ripple v. Mortgage Corp., 193 N. C., 422, 137 S. E., 156. “In North Carolina the penalty, as prescribed by statute, for taking, receiving, reserving, or charging for the use of money a sum in excess of interest at the legal rate is forfeiture of the entire interest which the note or other evidence of debt carries with it,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Ripple v. Mortgage & Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1927
  2. Spivey v. . GrantSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1887
  3. Rogers v. . BookerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
  4. Glisson v. . NewtonSuperior Court of North Carolina · 1796

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Kessing v. National Mortgage CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  2. Clark v. Hood System Industrial Bank of ReidsvilleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1931
  3. CBS Real Estate of Cedar Rapids, Inc. v. HarperSupreme Court of Iowa · 1982
  4. Kessing v. National Mortgage CorporationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API