Greer v. Hale
| Decision Date | 20 January 1898 |
| Citation | 95 Va. 533,28 S.E. 873 |
| Parties | GREER v. HALE et al. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Judgment—Impeachment—Usury—Limit OF Recovery.
1. The change in the statute, declaring that usurious contracts shall be deemed to be for an illegal consideration, instead of void, does not change the doctrine authorizing equity to relieve against a judgment obtained, by default, upon a contract tainted with usury.
2. Only the principal of a usurious loan can be recovered.
Appeal from circuit court, Franklin county.
Bill by G. H. T. Greer, receiver of the Franklin Bank, against G. W. B. Hale and another, to subject certain lands to the payment of a judgment. Defendants answered that the judgment was obtained, by default, upon a contract tainted with usury. From a decree relieving defendants to the amount of the usurious interest, complainant appeals. Affirmed.
E. W. Saunders, for appellant.
Dillard & Lee, for appellees.
The questions raised in this case for consideration are: First. Will a court of equity relieve against a judgment obtained at law, by default, upon a contract tainted with usury? Second. If it will, what is the measure of relief?
If the question were one of first impression in this state, there would be great force in the view urged by the counsel for appellant, that a defendant who has had ample opportunity to make his defense in an action at law, without availing himself of it, should not, in a subsequent chancery proceeding brought to enforce the judgment at law, be permitted to disturb its finality by Interposing the defense that the contract upon which it was founded was tainted with usury.
It is, however, weU settled in Virginia that a court of equity will interfere with a judgment at law, to relieve against usury. This was held in Young v. Scott, 4 Rand. 415, and the doctrine has since been recognized in a number of cases; the latest being Bank v. Fugate, 93 Va. 821, 23 S. E. 884. It would serve no good purpose to advert to the reasons which led to the exercise of this jurisdiction; for, whether those reasons commended themselves to our judgment or not, it would be our duty to enforce the law as established.
The change in the statute, declaring that usurious contracts shall be deemed to be for an illegal consideration, instead of void, as formerly, furnishes no warrant for departing from the long-established doctrine that a court of equity will go behind a judgment, to relieve against usury. Nor do the recent decisions of Bank...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruckdeschall v. Seibel
...setting up the defense of usury against the judgment, when it is sought to be enforced in a court of equity. Greer v. Hale, 95 Va. 533, 28 S. E. 873, 64 Am. St. Rep. 814. We see no difference in principle as affecting the question under consideration, between a judgment which is confessed a......
-
Logan w. Ballard.
...708, was not a case of judgment, but to enjoin action at law for usury. And it seems to have been a proper bill of discovery. In Greer v. Hale, 95 Va. 533, 64 Am St. R., 814, the opinion says, that if it were an original proposition it would be questionable whether a defendant who has had a......
-
Bank Of Radford v. Kirby
...subject, of course, to the rule laid down in Munford v. McVeigh, supra, touching the application of payment." Greer v. Hale, 95 Va. 533, 28 S. E. 873, 64 Am. St. Rep. 814. Mr. Minor, in discussing the "Doctrine of Usury" (3 Minor, Inst. pt. 1, pp. 306-308), cites a number of cases in which ......
- Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co v. Chambers