Tennille Banking Co. v. Quinn
This text of 118 S.E. 644 (Tennille Banking Co. v. Quinn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1. Where usurious interest is reserved for a loan of money contracted since the year 1916, and in a suit by the lender against the debtor a judgment is rendered for the principal amount only, the interest being forfeited by virtue of the provisions of the act of 1916 (Acts 1916, p. 48; Park’s Ann. Code, Supp. 1922, § 3438),'providing for a forfeiture of the entire interest when usury is charged, such judgment does not bear interest. Daniel v. Gibson, 72 Ga. 367 (2 a) (53 Am. R. 845) ; Danforth v. National Rank of Elizabeth, 48 Fed. 271 (17 L. R. A. 622, 1 C. C. A. 62). And this is so notwithstanding Civil Code (1910), § 3432, which provides that “ All judgments in this State bear lawful interest upon the principal amount recovered!’ -The act of 1916 prohibits the recovery of any interest where usury is charged. See Daniel v. Gibson, supra.
2. Where a plaintiff sues upon a promissory hote which bears interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum from maturity, and the defendant pleads usury and charges that a certain sum has been reserved as usu[160]*160rious interest, and the court enters a judgment for the net amount of the true principal admitted to be due, such judgment, since the act of 1916, supra, does not bear interest.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
118 S.E. 644, 156 Ga. 159, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tennille-banking-co-v-quinn-ga-1923.