Langford v. Woodruff

Court of Appeals of South Carolina

Langford v. Woodruff

30 S.C.L. 1

DecidedDecember 15, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 30 S.C.L. 1 (Langford v. Woodruff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Langford v. Woodruff, 30 S.C.L. 1 (S.C. Ct. App. 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

Curia, pet

Evans, J.

In cases of usury, the borrower is a competent witness, but if the lender will swear to the contrary, he is entitled to preference. Whenever the lender is alive, and he suffers the borrower to be sworn, the facts stated by him, it would seem, ought to be credited by the jury. It is stated in the report, that the account he gave of the payments was so vague, that it was impossible to ascertain what was due of the principal. This was, probably, a sufficient reason why the jury should find the whole note, but he clearly proved that the note had been renewed at twelve and a half per cent interest. This is usury, and’ the finding of the jury, allowing interest and costs, was contrary to law. The motion for a new trial is granted.

Richardson, O’Neall, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.

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

Curia, pet

Evans, J.

In cases of usury, the borrower is a competent witness, but if the lender will swear to the contrary, he is entitled to preference. Whenever the lender is alive, and he suffers the borrower to be sworn, the facts stated by him, it would seem, ought to be credited by the jury. It is stated in the report, that the account he gave of the payments was so vague, that it was impossible to ascertain what was due of the principal. This was, probably, a sufficient reason why the jury should find the whole note, but he clearly proved that the note had been renewed at twelve and a half per cent interest. This is usury, and’ the finding of the jury, allowing interest and costs, was contrary to law. The motion for a new trial is granted.

Richardson, O’Neall, Butler, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

30 S.C.L. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langford-v-woodruff-scctapp-1844.