Angier v. Smith

• Decision Date: 27 July 1897
• Citation: 28 S.E. 167,101 Ga. 844
• Parties: ANGIER et al. v. SMITH.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

28 S.E. 167

101 Ga. 844

ANGIER et al. v. SMITH.

Supreme Court of Georgia

July 27, 1897

Syllabus by the Court.

The defense of usury is good even against a bona fide holder for value of a negotiable promissory note who acquired title to the same before its maturity.

Error from city court of Atlanta; J. D. Berry, Judge.

Action by Charles H. Smith, Jr., against Hugh Angier and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants bring error. Reversed.

E. A. Angier, for plaintiffs in error.

Geo. K. Looper, for defendant in error.

COBB, J.

Is the plea of usury a good defense to a negotiable promissory note, when it is sought to be enforced by one who is a bona fide holder for value, and who acquired title before maturity? That such a note would be void in the hands of an innocent purchaser as to the usury and such part of the debt as is declared by law to be forfeited on account of the usury, is a principle well settled in this state. This doctrine was first announced in the case of Bailey v. Lumpkin, 1 Kelly, 392, and was adhered to in the case of Laramore v. Bank, 69 Ga. 722. There are no decisions of this court either overruling or criticising these cases. Judgment reversed.