Bellerby v. Goodwyn

• Decision Date: 28 November 1900
• Citation: 37 S.E. 376,112 Ga. 306
• Parties: BELLERBY v. GOODWYN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

37 S.E. 376

112 Ga. 306

BELLERBY v. GOODWYN.

Supreme Court of Georgia

November 28, 1900

Syllabus by the Court.

To constitute usury, it is essential that there be, at the time the contract is executed, an intent on the part of the lender to take or charge for the use of money a higher rate of interest than that allowed by law. (a) There being in this case no evidence that any such intent existed in the mind of the plaintiff when the loan was made, the verdict finding the contract to be usurious was unwarranted, and consequently the trial court erred in not granting a new trial.

Error from superior court, Monroe county; E. J. Reagan, Judge.

Action by John Bellerby against Charles O. Goodwyn. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Steed & Ryals, Hall & Wimberly, and Cabaniss & Willingham, for plaintiff in error.

R. L Berner, for defendant in error.

FISH J.

John Bellerby sued Charles O. Goodwyn on a promissory note with attached interest coupons, and, in addition to a general judgment, prayed for a special lien on certain lands described in a deed given as security for the debt. On the trial the only plea relied upon by the defendant was that "Said debt is infected with usury, in manner and form as follows: The note sued on in this instance bears date January 1, 1891, but in truth and reality this defendant never received said money until about the 15th of February or the 1st of March, and defendant insists that the interest which accrued from the 1st day of January until the reception by him of the money was usury, and the amount thus accruing was $40.00: that the defendant received no benefit, directly or indirectly, from the loan of this money from the 1st day of January to the said 15th day of February, and it was the purpose of the parties lending the same, by this method of delay, to receive a larger sum of interest than that permitted by the laws of the state." The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed, but found there was usury in the transaction, and that plaintiff was therefore not entitled to a special judgment against the land. Plaintiff excepted to the judgment overruling his motion for a new trial, which brings the case here for review.

While the motion for a new trial complained of the rejection by the court of certain evidence offered by the plaintiff, we think that the case turns upon the question whether there was any evidence to support the verdict sustaining the plea of usury. The record shows that in December, 1890, Goodwyn made application to Lawton & Smith, who were in the business of negotiating loans, to procure for him a loan of $5,000 for five years, at 8 per cent. interest per annum, offering to secure the loan with a deed to certain described lands, and...