Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester

87 S.E. 694, 17 Ga. App. 246, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 319
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 25, 1915
Docket5662
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 87 S.E. 694 (Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester, 87 S.E. 694, 17 Ga. App. 246, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 319 (Ga. Ct. App. 1915).

Opinions

Russell, C. J.

1. Under the answer to the certified question propounded by this court to the Supreme Court in this case, the deed was infected with usury. Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester, 143 Ga. 302 (84 S. E. 961). However, while the plea of usury is a personal one in this State, the debtor’s trustee in bankruptcy is the representative of the debtor, and the defense of usury is as available to the debtor’s trustee as to the debtor himself. In re Stern. 144 Fed. 956 (76 C. C. A. 10, 16 A. B. R. 510, 512). Consequently, in the proceeding brought by the trustee in bankruptcy to avoid the deed made by the debtor and to subject the land thereby conveyed to administration in the court of bankruptcy, the trustee might have pleaded that the deed was void for usury, and, having failed to avail himself of this defense, and the United States district court (which court had jurisdiction of such a question) having adjudged the deed to be a valid conveyance, the bankrupt is estopped by that judgment from asserting the invalidity of the conveyance upon the ground of usury. Res judicata as well Includes that which could properly have been pleaded in the cause as that which was actually pleaded.

2. In view of the foregoing rulings, the court erred in excluding from the jury the certified copy of the transcript of the record in the United States court in the case in which the trustee in bankruptcy of the defendants had sought to avoid the deed, in declining to instruct the jury as requested by the plaintiff in error on the question of res judicata, and in overruling the motion for a new trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, J., not presiding.

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

Related

Steinberg v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance
108 F.R.D. 355 (S.D. Georgia, 1985)
Banks v. Employees Loan & Thrift Corp.
143 S.E.2d 787 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Napier v. City Products Corp.
141 S.E.2d 552 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Nuckolls v. Bank of California
74 P.2d 264 (California Supreme Court, 1937)
Georgia Securities Co. v. Arnold
193 S.E. 366 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1937)
Goodwin v. Bowen
191 S.E. 691 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1937)
Scarborough v. Edgar
168 S.E. 592 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1933)
Farmer v. Baird
132 S.E. 260 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1926)
Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester
91 S.E. 490 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 S.E. 694, 17 Ga. App. 246, 1915 Ga. App. LEXIS 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loganville-banking-co-v-forrester-gactapp-1915.