Nance v. . Welborne

142 S.E. 477, 195 N.C. 459, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 121
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided April 11, 1928·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

A borrower employs an attorney and pays Mm $5.00 for preparing note and chattel mortgage and securing extension or renewal of a loan of $40.00 for 60 days. Does the payment of this fee to the borrower’s attorney amount to exaction of usury on the part of the lender who knew nothing of the arrangement between the borrower and his attorney? The question answers itself in the negative. Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524, 125 S. E., 398; Miller v. Dunn and Abdallah v. Dunn, 188 N. C., 397, 124 S. E., 746; Waters v. Garris, 188 N. C., 305, 124 S. E., 334.

Affirmed.

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

Nance v. . Welborne, 142 S.E. 477, 195 N.C. 459, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 121 (N.C. 1928).

142 S.E. 477 (Nance v. . Welborne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. . Dalton
115 S.E. 881 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1923)