Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Hoffman

• Decision Date: 02 September 1897
• Citation: 27 S.E. 692,50 S.C. 303
• Parties: EQUITABLE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. HOFFMAN (two cases).
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

27 S.E. 692

50 S.C. 303

EQUITABLE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. HOFFMAN (two cases).

Supreme Court of South Carolina

September 2, 1897

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Edgefield; O. W. Buchanan Judge.

Separate actions by the Equitable Building & Loan Association against Annie D. Hoffman. The cases were tried together, and from the decree rendered plaintiff appeals. Modified.

Evans & Jackson and Thos. S. Moorman, for appellant.

Croft & Tillman, for respondent.

GARY A. J.

These actions were commenced on the 1st of October, 1895, in the court of common pleas for Edgefield county to foreclose two mortgages executed by the defendant to the plaintiffs on the 19th day of April, 1892, and the 11th day of May, 1893 respectively, to secure her bonds to the said plaintiffs of the same date. The two cases involved the same issues, and were tried together before his honor, Judge Buchanan, upon the testimony reported by the master. The facts are more particularly set out in the decree of his honor, Judge Buchanan. The plaintiffs appealed upon the following exceptions: "(1) Because his honor erred in holding that the contracts were to be performed in South Carolina, and was a South Carolina contract, and governed by the laws of South Carolina, when he should have found that the two contracts were governed by the laws of the state of Georgia. (2) Because his honor erred in considering and deciding the question of usury under the laws of the state of South Carolina, when he should have considered and decided said question under the laws of the state of Georgia. (3) Because his honor erred in deciding and holding that the contracts were usurious. (4) Because his honor erred in not holding that the contracts, under the laws of Georgia, were not usurious, and no penalty could attach to the plaintiffs. (5) Because his honor erred in not allowing the plaintiffs ten per cent. attorney's fees, when the contracts distinctly specified that ten per cent. attorney's fees should be allowed if the contracts were forced to collection by an attorney. (6) Because his honor erred in holding that the amounts paid monthly on the shares of the defendant should be applied to reduce the principal of the debt. (7) Because his honor erred in finding that there was due by the defendant to the plaintiff, on both of said contracts, the total sum of one thousand and thirty-one 46/100 dollars ($1,031.46). (8) Because his honor erred...