Meroney v. . B. and L. Association

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Meroney v. . B. and L. Association

17 S.E. 637, 112 N.C. 842

DecidedFebruary 5, 1893

StatusPublished

This text of 17 S.E. 637 (Meroney v. . B. and L. Association) 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. . B. and L. Association, 17 S.E. 637, 112 N.C. 842 (N.C. 1893).

Pincite

Opinion

If it is true, as the plaintiff alleges, that the contract set 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 v. Lassiter, ante, 128, entitles the plaintiff to have the restraining order continued in force to the hearing.

AFFIRMED.

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

If it is true, as the plaintiff alleges, that the contract set 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 v. Lassiter, ante, 128, entitles the plaintiff to have the restraining order continued in force to the hearing.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 S.E. 637, 112 N.C. 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meroney-v-b-and-l-association-nc-1893.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack