Craig v. McCulloch, et als.

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtSNYDER.
Citation20 W.Va. 148
PartiesCraig v. McCulloch, et als.
Decision Date19 August 1882

20 W.Va. 148

Craig
v.
McCulloch, et als.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Juno 23, 1832
Decided August 19, 1882.


[20 W.Va. 148]

1. The power of a court to punish for contempt is arbitrary and discretionary with the court, against whom, or whose orders, the offense has been committed; and proceedings for the punishment of such an offense being in their nature criminal, this Court has no jurisdiction to review an order of the circuit court deciding, that no contempt has been committed, (p. 152.)

2. An agreement to pay interest upon interest is valid, if made after the interest, which is to bear interest, has become due and payable, (p. 153.)

3. A, being indebted to B by written contract, from time to time, as interest became due and payable by the terms of such contract, gave to B his notes for such accrued interest, and subsequently, upon a settlement between the parties, said notes with the interest computed thereon from their respective dates are added to the original debt, and an obligation is then executed by A to B for the aggregate amount bearing interest from date, and a trust deed on real estate given to secure said obligation. Held:

This is not usurious nor inequitable, (p. 154.)

4. Where an injunction is obtained upon a bill alleging a parol contract for the extension of the time for the collection of a debt secured by trust deed, and the proof does not, in the opinion of this Court, establish such a contract as would be specifically enforced by a court of equity, it will not be held, that the circuit court erred in refusing to direct an issue to be tried by a jury to ascertain, whether such contract was in fact made. (p. 155.)

Appeal from and supersedeas to a decree of the judge of the circuit court of the county of Mason, rendered in vacation on the 6th day of July, 1881, in a cause in said court then pending, wherein George W. Craig was plaintiff, and John McCulloch and James II. Couch were defendants, allowed upon the petition of said Craig.

Hon. F. A. Guthrie, judge of the seventh judicial circuit, rendered the decree appealed from.

[20 W.Va. 149]

John W. English for appellant cited the following authorities: 4 Rand. 411; 8 W. Va. 95; 4 W. Va. 610; 11 W. Va. 562; Id. 584; 18 Gratt. 231.

William A. Quarrier for appellant.

1. The defendants refused to obey the order of injunction in this case. This is a contempt.

2. A party in contempt cannot ask to dissolve an injunction until he has purged himself from the contempt. Particularly when the contempt is called to the attention of the court by affidavit. 2 High on Injunctions, section 1464.

3. The compounding of interest is illegal, except (a) when the original security provides for the stated payment of interest and the right to make the interest principal upon default of payment, (b) Or where, after interest has accrued, there be a new contract for forbearance of the original debt, in consideration of which the accrued interest should become principal. Genin v. Ingersoll, 11 "West Ya. 555; Pindcdl v. Bank, 10 Leigh 481.

4. Except where the contract is as described in point three, the compounding of interest is usurious. Ward v. Brandon, 1 Heiskell 490.

5. If the lender compound interest four times upon the borrower, no circumstances will excuse the compounding, it becomes a shift, and a device to evade the law. It is usury. Code West Ya. section 7 chapter 96; 7 Wait's Actions and Defences 611.

6. If the usury was committed and the usurious contract executed before the passage of the Code of West Yirginia, section 5 Code of Yirginia applies, and the contract for both principal and interest is void. The adoption of the Code of West Yirginia cannot revive the void contract.

7. If the original contract be void, and the original loan be forfeited, a note for the interest, legal and illegal, that accrued on the void and forfeited loan, though executed after the passage of the Code, is also illegal and void.

8. When relief is asked from a court of equity, upon the ground of a new contract, and the evidence of the existence of the new contract is conflicting, and if an issue he asked, it is error to refuse the issue. 18 Gratt. 231; 4 W. Va. 611; 8 W. Va. 95.

[20 W.Va. 150]

Howard and Simpson and Smith fi Knight, for appellees, cited: 16 W. Va. 874; 11 W. Va.' 555; 10 Leigh 481; 67 N Y. 162; 4 Rand. 406; 1 Johns. Chy. 13; 3 Ohio 17; 4 Ohio 373; 14 Am. Rep. 352; 103 U. s". 238.

Snyder, Judge, announced the opinion of the Court: In consideration of lands in Mason county conveyed by "William Langley and others to G. W. Craig, the said Craig executed to said Langley and others his four bonds, each for one thousand dollars, dated June 7, 1851, and payable four years after date. When said bonds became due, on the 7th June, 1855, John McCulloch, at the request of said Craig, paid to the holders thereof four thousand dollars and said bonds were delivered to him. McCulloch being then the owner of said bonds, Craig on the 7th June, 1856, paid to him one hundred dollars and executed to him his note of that date for one hundred and forty dollars, these two sums being the interest on said four thousand dollars from June 7, 1855, to June 7, 1856; and June 7, 1857, said Craig executed to said McCulloch another bond for two hundred and forty dollars, being the interest on said four thousand dollars from June 7, 1856, to June 7, 1857. McCulloch, also, made loans to Craig as follows: September 6, 1859, six hundred dollars, September 20, 1859, three hundred dollars, January 1, 1860, three hundred dollars, and February 1, 1862, three hundred and thirty-three dollars, for wdiieh several sums Craig gave him his notes. June 7, 1862, a settlement was made between McCulloch and Craig. A statement showing the items of said settlement is filed in the

cause by Craig and is as follows:

Amount of four bonds____....................$4,000.00

Interest on the four bonds from June 7, 1858.... 960.00

Amount of bond dated June 7, 1857............ 240.00

Interest to June 7, 1862____................... 72.00

Amount of bond dated September 6, 1859....... 600.00

Interest to June 7, 1862....................... 99.10

Amount of bond dated to June 7, 1856......... 140.00

Interest to June 7, 1862....................... 50.40

Amount of bond dated September 20, 1859...... 300.00

Interest to June 7, 1862....................... 48.85

Amount of bond dated January 1, 1860......... 300.00

[20 W.Va. 151]

Interest to June 7, 1862............

Amount of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...63 N.W. 969; Montgomery v. Booming Co., 62 id., 561; Schab v. Coots, 44 Mich. 463; Brown v. Brown, 29 S.W. 318; Craig v. McCallogh, 20 W.Va. 148.) As the alleged contempt is criminal in nature, the code of civil procedure does not apply. (11 Nev. 187; 12 id., 158; Rap. on Contempt, 148 and ......
  • Hamilton v. Wheeling Pub. Serv. Co
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 3, 1921
    ...to pay compound interest is valid if made after the interest which is to bear interest has become due and payable. Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W. Va. 148; Stansbury v. Stansbury, 24 W. Va. 634; Barbour v. Tompkins, 31 W. Va. 410, 7 S. E. 1. And interest on judgments and decrees may properly be a......
  • State Ex Rel. Cont'l Coal Co v. Bittner, (No. 5509.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 14, 1926
    ...contempts. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 13 Grat. (Va.) 57, State v. Irwin, 30 W. Va. 404, 4 S. E. 413, and Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W. Va. 148, 153, where Judge Snyder says: "Proceedings for the punishment of contempt are in their nature criminal, and while an appeal to this court l......
  • Barutio v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., No. 26352.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 8, 1944
    ...Mowry v. Bishop, 5 Paige (N.Y.) 98; Guernsey v. Rexford, 63 N.Y. 631; Hale v. Hale, 41 Tenn. 233, 78 Am. Dec. 490; Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W. Va. 148; Case v. Fish, 58 Wis. 56, 15 N.W. 808; Pinckard v. Ponder, 6 Ga. "The learned trial judge, in support of his conclusion and judgment, cited D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Laramie National Bank v. Steinhoff
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • June 1, 1898
    ...63 N.W. 969; Montgomery v. Booming Co., 62 id., 561; Schab v. Coots, 44 Mich. 463; Brown v. Brown, 29 S.W. 318; Craig v. McCallogh, 20 W.Va. 148.) As the alleged contempt is criminal in nature, the code of civil procedure does not apply. (11 Nev. 187; 12 id., 158; Rap. on Contempt, 148 and ......
  • Hamilton v. Wheeling Pub. Serv. Co
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • May 3, 1921
    ...to pay compound interest is valid if made after the interest which is to bear interest has become due and payable. Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W. Va. 148; Stansbury v. Stansbury, 24 W. Va. 634; Barbour v. Tompkins, 31 W. Va. 410, 7 S. E. 1. And interest on judgments and decrees may properly be a......
  • State Ex Rel. Cont'l Coal Co v. Bittner, (No. 5509.)
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • December 14, 1926
    ...contempts. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. City of Wheeling, 13 Grat. (Va.) 57, State v. Irwin, 30 W. Va. 404, 4 S. E. 413, and Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W. Va. 148, 153, where Judge Snyder says: "Proceedings for the punishment of contempt are in their nature criminal, and while an appeal to this court l......
  • Barutio v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., No. 26352.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)
    • February 8, 1944
    ...Mowry v. Bishop, 5 Paige (N.Y.) 98; Guernsey v. Rexford, 63 N.Y. 631; Hale v. Hale, 41 Tenn. 233, 78 Am. Dec. 490; Craig v. McCulloch, 20 W. Va. 148; Case v. Fish, 58 Wis. 56, 15 N.W. 808; Pinckard v. Ponder, 6 Ga. "The learned trial judge, in support of his conclusion and judgment, cited D......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT