Nance v. . Welborne
This text of 142 S.E. 477 (Nance v. . Welborne) 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.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
142 S.E. 477, 195 N.C. 459, 1928 N.C. LEXIS 121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nance-v-welborne-nc-1928.