Robinson v. Morris Plan Co.
Robinson v. Morris Plan Company
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Guerry, J.
The taking and reserving of interest at the rate of 8 per cent, in advance, whether for a short-time or long-time loan, is usurious. Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester, 143 Ga. 302 ( 84 S. E. 961 , L. R. A. 1915D, 1195) ; Reese v. Bloodworth, 146 Ga. 355 ( 91 S. E. 120 ); Bank of Lumpkin County v. Justus, 150 Ga. 286 ( 103 S. E. 794 ) ; Haley v. Covington, 19 Ga. App. 782 ( 92 S. E. 297 ). The provisions of the Civil Code (1910), § 2878, with reference to building and loan associations, to apply, must be pleaded. The petition does not disclose that the plaintiff stands in any exceptional capacity. The plea of usury was good, and the court erred in striking it.
Judgment reversed.
Maolntyre, J., concurs. Broyles, G. J., dissents.
Dissent
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Broyles, C. J.,
dissenting. IJnder the Civil Code (1910), § 2878, as amended by the act of 1910 (Ga. L. 1910, p. 55) and the act of 1913 (Ga. L. 1913, p. 54), and under the decisions of the Supreme Court in Atlanta Loan & Saving Co. v. Norton, 149 Ga. 805 ( 102 S. E. 536 ), and of this court in the same case, 24 Ga. App. 771 ( 102 S. E. 539 ), the plaintiff was “a like association” to building and loan associations within the meaning of the act of 1913. The defendant’s answer was properly stricken. In my opinion, the court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the principal, interest, and court costs, but erred in including therein attorney’s fees. I think the judgment *738 should be affirmed on condition that the plaintiff write off from the judgment the amount found for attorney’s fees.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.