Meroney v. Atlanta National Building & Loan Ass'n

112 N.C. 842
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 15, 1893·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Pee, Curiam:

If it is true, as the plaintiff alleges, that the contract sot out in the complaint was made payable in the State of Georgia to avoid the usury laws of this State, that contract will be adjudged to be usurious, whatever may be the law of that State. There is, therefore, a “serious issue” between the parties, which, under the rule established by Whitaker v. Hill, 96 N. C., 2; Harrison v. Bray, 92 N. C., 488, and Davis & Gregory v. Lassiter, at this Term, entitles the plaintiff to have the restraining order continued in force to the hearing.

No Error.

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

Meroney v. Atlanta National Building & Loan Ass'n, 112 N.C. 842 (N.C. 1893).

112 N.C. 842 (Meroney v. Atlanta National Building & Loan Ass'n) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ripple v. Mortgage & Acceptance Corp.
137 S.E. 156 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)