Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. W.C. Moore, for appellant, cites: The evidence shows that it was the intention of all the parties that the old indebtedness be wiped out by the new obligation of February 20th: 28 S.C. 115; 37 S.C. 590; 47 S.C. 445; 67 S.C. 553; 77 S.C. 147; 104 S.C. 367; 22 Ohio St. Rep. 516; 7 Cyc. 749; 29 Cyc. 1136. Inclusion of interest in face of note a sufficient contract in writing to authorize change of eight per cent. interest: 39 S.C. 175; 77 S.C. 146. Withholding attorney's fees is no part of penalty provided by the usury statute: 109 S.C. 264; 83 S.C. 529. Messrs. Sherwood McMillan and L.D. Lide, for respondents, cite: More than seven per cent. usurious unless instrument in writing authorizing eight per cent.: 77 S.C. 141. Where there is usury only sum actually advanced can be recovered, which excludes attorneys' fees: 49 S.C. 345. Whether new obligation was a renewal or payment of old obligation question of fact: 77 S.C. 141. If there be usury in original transaction it affects all consecutive securities, and neither renewal of an old or substitution of a new security between the same parties can efface it: 42 L. Ed: (U.S.) 801. Even though new parties are brought in or the borrower assumes a different relation to the security: 39 Cyc. 1003-1005. Lender cannot retain unlawful gains, or contract for same and by change of securities or renewal of obligation avoid the forfeiture enacted: 2 Spiers 83. Unlawful contract when made it could not be made lawful by another contract: 3 Brev. 54. Any subsequent contract to pay a usurious contract is itself usurious: 39 Cyc. 997.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
  • Mr. W.C. Moore, for appellant, cites: The evidence shows that it was the intention of all the parties that the old indebtedness be wiped out by the new obligation of February 20th: 28 S.C. 115; 37 S.C. 590; 47 S.C. 445; 67 S.C. 553; 77 S.C. 147; 104 S.C. 367; 22 Ohio St. Rep. 516; 7 Cyc. 749; 29 Cyc. 1136. Inclusion of interest in face of note a sufficient contract in writing to authorize change of eight per cent. interest: 39 S.C. 175; 77 S.C. 146. Withholding attorney's fees is no part of penalty provided by the usury statute: 109 S.C. 264; 83 S.C. 529. Messrs. Sherwood McMillan and L.D. Lide, for respondents, cite: More than seven per cent. usurious unless instrument in writing authorizing eight per cent.: 77 S.C. 141. Where there is usury only sum actually advanced can be recovered, which excludes attorneys' fees: 49 S.C. 345. Whether new obligation was a renewal or payment of old obligation question of fact: 77 S.C. 141. If there be usury in original transaction it affects all consecutive securities, and neither renewal of an old or substitution of a new security between the same parties can efface it: 42 L. Ed: (U.S.) 801. Even though new parties are brought in or the borrower assumes a different relation to the security: 39 Cyc. 1003-1005. Lender cannot retain unlawful gains, or contract for same and by change of securities or renewal of obligation avoid the forfeiture enacted: 2 Spiers 83. Unlawful contract when made it could not be made lawful by another contract: 3 Brev. 54. Any subsequent contract to pay a usurious contract is itself usurious: 39 Cyc. 997.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

PEOPLES BANK OF DILLON v. PERRIT, ADM'R. PEOPLES BANK OF DILLON

June 28, 1920. The opinion of the Court was delivered by

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE GARY.

This Court is satisfied with the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the part of his Honor, the Circuit Judge, in both cases herein, and does not deem it necessary to add any other reasons to those assigned by him.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

Comments

PEOPLES BANK v. PERRITT
(Jun 28, 1920)