Hollis E.T Al v. Son

• Decision Date: 28 February 1885
• Parties: Hollis e.t al. vs. Swift & son
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

74 Ga. 595

Hollis e.t al. vs. Swift & son

Supreme Court of the State of Georgia

FEBRUARY TERM, 1885.

.

Interest and Usury. Factors. Before Judge Willis. Taylor Superior Court. August Term, 1884.

To the report contained in the decision, it is only necessary to add that the note sued on, and which was claimed to be usurious, was as follows:

" By the first day of October next, we, or either of us, promise to pay Geo. P. Swift & Son fifty-four dollars, at their office in Columbus, Georgia, advanced on crops, with interest at and after maturity at the rate of twelve per cent per annum until paid, for value received. Five dollars of the above amount may be discharged upon the delivery to said Geo. P. Swift & Son [of] five bales of cotton, on which they are to have their usual storage, commissions, etc. And we waive or renounce our right to the benefit of the exemption provided for under sections 1 and 4, article 9, of the constitution of Georgia, 1877."

This note was dated January 4, 1879.

W. S. Wallace & Son, for plaintiffs in error.

Albert A. Carson; J. M. Russell; W. D. Ellis, for defendants.

Hall, Justice.

The note upon which this suit was brought appears to have been given for a balance due the plaintiffs on two previous notes. The defence set up was usury in the original notes, which was also in this given in renewal and continuation of them. Each of the original notes, as well asthis, contained a stipulation that one dollar for every ten dollars of the principal sum might be discharged upon delivery to the payees, who were warehousemen and commission merchants, of one bale of cotton, on which they were to have their usual storage, commissions, etc. This note was for fifty-four dollars, and stipulated for the delivery of five bales of cotton upon the conditions named. The notes which preceded it stipulated for the dilivery of a larger number of bales. There were other allegations in the plea of usurious dealings besides this stipulation, which defendants claimed was a mere shift or device for taking usurious interest; the plaintiffs, on the other hand, insisted that it was a ligitimate contract in advancement of their business as warehousemen; that their money was loaned to their customers only, and for the sole purpose of advancing their interest as warehousemen and commission merchants, and they denied that this was a device to cover usurious dealings.

Among other things, the judge charged the jury, "that if, in addition to the interest charged, it...