Meroney v. Atlanta National Building & Loan Ass'n

112 N.C. 842
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 15, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 N.C. 842 (Meroney v. Atlanta National Building & Loan Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
112 N.C. 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meroney-v-atlanta-national-building-loan-assn-nc-1893.