Legal Opinion

Tennille Banking Co. v. Quinn

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided July 26, 1923No. 3495PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHill, J.

1. Where usurious interest is reserved for a loan of money contracted since the year 1916, and in a suit by the lender against the debtor a judgment is rendered for the principal amount only, the interest being forfeited by virtue of the provisions of the act of 1916 (Acts 1916, p. 48; Park’s Ann. Code, Supp. 1922, § 3438),'providing for a forfeiture of the entire interest when usury is charged, such judgment does not bear interest. Daniel v. Gibson, 72 Ga. 367 (2 a) (53 Am. R. 845) ; Danforth v. National Rank of Elizabeth, 48 Fed. 271 (17 L. R. A. 622, 1 C. C. A. 62). And this is so…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Daniel v. GibsonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1884
  2. Danforth v. National State Bank of ElizabethCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1891

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Poulk v. Cairo Banking Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1924
  2. Taylor v. Merchants Mutual Credit Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1959
  3. Tennille Banking Co. v. QuinnCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923

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

Powered by the Exa API