green
Positive treatment
2.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McCrory v. Young
We clearly hold, however, that these notes are separate legal entities and there is, therefore, no legal or evidentiary basis upon which to combine the effect of these two notes, and we have found no authority or basis whatever to conclude that usury in one loan is excused if there are other non-usurious notes to the same creditor (see generally, Bishop v. Exchange Bank, 114 Ga. 962, 963-964 ( 41 SE 43 ), as to onerous obligations exacted in connection with legitimate obligations, as subterfuge for usury as a matter of law).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harrison v. Arrendale
Upon execution of a new note including assumption of Richards’ indebtedness, defendant would return'the checks, thus disposing of his record. ^ In Bishop v. Exchange Bank, 114 Ga. 962, 964 (2) ( 41 SE 43 ), it was held that where a lender requires, as a condition precedent to making a loan upon which the full legal rate of interest is expressly charged, that the borrower shall assume or pay off a debt due the lender from a third party whose debt the borrower is under no obligation to pay, the transaction is usurious.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Gomez, administrator
v.
Johnson
v.
Johnson
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Mar 12, 1902.
T. F. Corrigan, for plaintiff in error. P. F. Smith, contra.
Simmons.
Published
Simmons, C. J.
No error of law was complained of; and the verdict, after it had been reduced in compliance with the order of the trial judge, was supported by the evidence. There was, therefore, no abuse of discretion in refusing a new trial.
Judgment affirmed.
All the Justices concurring, except Little, J., absent.