Gregg v. Phillips

California Court of Appeal

Gregg v. Phillips

286 P. 1071, 105 Cal. App. 132, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 642

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedApril 8, 1930

DocketDocket No. 7272.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 286 P. 1071 (Gregg v. Phillips) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gregg v. Phillips, 286 P. 1071, 105 Cal. App. 132, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 642 (Cal. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of $9,000 claimed due on a promissory note. She had judgment, for $5,000, without interest, from which defendants appeal upon typewritten transcripts.

The defense to the complaint was thaf the note was usurious. The evidence showed that but $5,000 was actu *133 ally loaned to defendants and that the sum of $4,000 was a bonus or interest for the loan. Plaintiff waived claim to the sum of $4,000 and interest and asked for judgment for -the principal sum alone.

The appeal is grounded on the assertion that because the transaction called for a usurious bonus and interest the entire note evidencing the debt for the principal sum was void and uncollectible. The point is without merit. The Usury Law enacted by the electors (Stats. 1919, p. lxxxiii) provides that any agreement calling for a greater return than that permitted by the act “shall be null and void as to any agreement or stipulation—to pay interest and no action at law to recover interest in any sum shall be maintained. ...”

It will be noted that the act quoted above does not declare the note void, but only the portion of the agreement or contract as to the payment of interest shall be null and void. This is in harmony with all the decisions in this state on the subject. (Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co., 200 Cal. 609, 622 [53 A. L. R 725, 254 Pac. 956, 255 Pac. 805]; Davis v. Westphal, 102 Cal. App. 148 [282 Pac. 800, 801].)

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Burroughs, J., pro tem., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

NOURSE, P. J.

Plaintiff sued to recover the sum of $9,000 claimed due on a promissory note. She had judgment, for $5,000, without interest, from which defendants appeal upon typewritten transcripts.

The defense to the complaint was thaf the note was usurious. The evidence showed that but $5,000 was actu *133 ally loaned to defendants and that the sum of $4,000 was a bonus or interest for the loan. Plaintiff waived claim to the sum of $4,000 and interest and asked for judgment for -the principal sum alone.

The appeal is grounded on the assertion that because the transaction called for a usurious bonus and interest the entire note evidencing the debt for the principal sum was void and uncollectible. The point is without merit. The Usury Law enacted by the electors (Stats. 1919, p. lxxxiii) provides that any agreement calling for a greater return than that permitted by the act “shall be null and void as to any agreement or stipulation—to pay interest and no action at law to recover interest in any sum shall be maintained. ...”

It will be noted that the act quoted above does not declare the note void, but only the portion of the agreement or contract as to the payment of interest shall be null and void. This is in harmony with all the decisions in this state on the subject. (Haines v. Commercial Mortgage Co., 200 Cal. 609, 622 [53 A. L. R 725, 254 Pac. 956, 255 Pac. 805]; Davis v. Westphal, 102 Cal. App. 148 [282 Pac. 800, 801].)

Judgment affirmed.

Sturtevant, J., and Burroughs, J., pro tem., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 P. 1071, 105 Cal. App. 132, 1930 Cal. App. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gregg-v-phillips-calctapp-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack