Craven v. Bates

• Decision Date: 01 April 1895
• Citation: 23 S.E. 202,96 Ga. 78
• Parties: CRAVEN v. BATES et al.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

23 S.E. 202

96 Ga. 78

CRAVEN

v.BATES et al.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

April 1, 1895.

Usury—Proof of Foreign Statute—Presumptions.

Although promissory notes bearing on their face a greater rate of interest than 6 per cent, were executed and made payable in the state of Tennessee, and it appeared, by an admission in open court, that the legal rate of interest in that state was 6 per cent., in the absence of any further evidence as to the laws of Tennessee on the subject of usury, the courts of Georgia will not hold that these notes are absolutely void, and will sustain a verdict making a person who guarantied their payment lia-ble for the principal of the notes, with interest thereon at 6 per cent. (Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from superior court, Catoosa county; T. W. Milner, Judge.

Action by Bates, Kingsbery & Co. against James R. Craven. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant brings error. Brought forward from the last term. Code, §§ 4271a-4271c. Affirmed.

W. H. Payne and R. J. & J. McCamy, for plaintiff in error.

McCutchen & Shumate, for defendants in error.

LUMPKIN, J. It appears that Henry L. Craven made and delivered to Bates, Kingsbery & Co. three promissory notes, which on their face bore interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum, and that afterwards James R. Craven, by an instrument in writing, guarantied the payment of these notes. An action was brought upon this instrument by Bates, Kingsbery & Co., and the only defense which it is now material to notice was that these notes were executed and made payable in the state of Tennessee; that, under the laws of that state, they were usurious and void, and consequently the defendant's contract guarantying their payment was without legal consideration, and could not be enforced against him. There was an admission by the plaintiffs in open court that the legal rate of interest in the state of Tennessee was 6 per cent, but there was not before the court any other or further evidence as to what were the laws of Tennessee upon the subject of usury. There was a verdict for the plaintiffs, and the defendant excepted to the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

Assuming, in behalf of the latter, that the notes were in fact Tennessee contracts, the question is whether or not, upon the facts recited, he was entitled to an adjudication that they were absolutely void. His contention was that these notes were void, because the law of Tennessee made them so, but, as will have been seen, he failed to show this by evidence.

The court refused to charge that, if the notes were Tennessee contracts, both they and the instrument guarantying their payment would be void, but did charge that, although the notes were made and delivered in Tennessee, they were collectible to the extent of principal and 6 per cent, interest, and that thus far the defendant would be liable upon his guaranty. We are of the opinion that the defendant, by his evidence, made no case entitling him to invoke for his protection the usury laws of Tennessee, whatever they may be, further than as stated in the above-recited charge. All we know from the record concerning the usury laws of Tennessee is that no greater rate of interest than 0 per cent, is allowed, and we are not thereby informed as to how usury affects the validity of...