Harris v. Usry
77 Ga. 426
Opinion
One objection made to this mortgage foreclosure by the claimant is sufficient, without more, to make the affirmance of the judgment necessary. The principal and interest are not separated therein. Code, §3570 ; Acts of 1814, p. 393; 6 Ga. 303.
Otherwise the judgment of foreclosure would draw interest on interest, and thus compound the interest.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Harris v. Usry, 77 Ga. 426 (Ga. 1886).
77 Ga. 426 (Harris v. Usry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Moore v. Wachovia Mortgage Co.
226 S.E.2d 812 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1976)
Sirmans v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
199 S.E.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Dampier v. Citizens & Southern National Bank
199 S.E.2d 330 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1973)
Colter v. Consolidated Credit Corp.
154 S.E.2d 713 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
McDonald v. G. A. C. Finance Corp.
154 S.E.2d 825 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1967)
Sewell v. Peoples Loan & Finance Co.
118 S.E.2d 722 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1961)
Bank of Tupelo v. Collier
15 S.E.2d 499 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1941)