Ward v. . Sugg
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Action tried at March Term, 1893, of Pitt Superior Court, to enjoin a sale threatened to be made under a mortgage, securing, among other notes or bonds, one for $400, described in the pleadings, and to have said note or bond declared usurious and void.
Read the full summary
Action tried at March Term, 1893, of Pitt Superior Court, to enjoin a sale threatened to be made under a mortgage, securing, among other notes or bonds, one for $400, described in the pleadings, and to have said note or bond declared usurious and void. Upon the pleadings the following issues were submitted to the jury; “1. Was the $400 note executed for an amount agreed to be paid over and above the debts, and for an usurious charge for the use of the money ? ” Answer; “ Yes.” “2. Is the defendant Harrington the bona fide owner of the $400 note, due January 1, 1893, and did he acquire the…
1Opinion of the Court
C n a Ríe, J.:
The jury found that the $400 note in suit was wholly given for an usurious charge for use of money, and that the present holder acquired it before maturity, for value and without notice. The question, whether it is valid in his hands is not an open one in this State. Such note is held to be void into whatever hands it may pass. Ruffin v. Armstrong, 9 N. C., 411; Collier v. Nevill, 14 N. C., 30. Such was also the law in England until it was, in some respects, modified by the Act of 58 George III., and is still the law in New York and other States, except where modified by…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Oates v. National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Woods & Co. v. ArmstrongSupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- The Oneida Bank v. . the Ontario BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Glenn v. Farmer's Bank of North CarolinaSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1874
- Callanan v. ShawSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.