Adams v. Angier Bank & Trust Co.
This text of 121 S.E. 529 (Adams v. Angier Bank & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The defendants assign as error the judgment overruling the demurrer. They contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to equitable relief because he has neither paid nor tendered the principal and the legal interest thereon, and in support of their position they cite Owens v. Wright, 161 N. C., 127, and Corey v. Hooker, 171 N. C., 229. But these authorities do not aid the defendants. True, in each case it was held that equity will relieve against usury only upon payment of the amount actually received and the legal interest; but in the first of these cases the usurious charges were eliminated, and in the second it was said that when a mortgagor brings an action to restrain the mortgagee from selling mortgaged property on the ground that the debt securéd is usurious, an injunction will b'e refused if the mortgagee waives the usurious part of the contract. In the present case the defendants have not waived their claim to the alleged usury, and it would be unconscionable to permit them to collect the amount actually due while insisting upon the payment of a bonus which by demurrer they admit is illegal.
The cause first assigned to defeat the plaintiff’s equity requires no discussion.
In continuing the injunction, his Honor committed no error.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
121 S.E. 529, 187 N.C. 343, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-angier-bank-trust-co-nc-1924.