Morrison v. Markham

• Decision Date: 18 January 1887
• Parties: MORRISON and others v. MARKHAM.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

1 S.E. 425

78 Ga. 161

MORRISON and others v. MARKHAM.

Supreme Court of Georgia

January 18, 1887

Error from Morgan county.

Action to recover land.

Calvin George and Foster & Butler, for plaintiffs in error.

McHenry & McHenry, for defendant.

BLANDFORD, J.

This was an action brought by defendant in error against the plaintiffs in error to recover the possession of certain land in the county of Morgan. The plaintiff in the court below had a verdict, defendant moved for a new trial, and upon its denial the defendant excepted, and error is assigned for the refusal to grant a new trial. Did the evidence authorize the verdict? We think not. The evidence relied on by the plaintiff was a deed to the premises in dispute, made by defendant to plaintiff. The evidence by Markham and Morrison, which is uncontradicted, is that in 1882 Morrison and wife had before that time become indebted to Markham over $1,000, and it was agreed that the deed be made to secure this sum; that Markham executed his bond, whereby he agreed to reconvey the land within three years, if the thousand dollars be paid, together with $120 annually, rent. Morrison retained possession of land, and Markham testified that all he wanted was his money and 12 per cent. interest.

It is clear that the $120 rent mentioned in the bond is 12 per cent. interest on the $1,000 which Morrison and wife owed Markham; indeed, there is no evidence to the contrary. The Code, § 2057 f: "All titles to property, made as a part of an usurious contract, or to evade the laws against usury, are void." Then, when it is made to appear, as it did appear in this case, that the deed made by Morrison and wife to Markham was but a security for the money they owed him, and that they were to have time to pay the money at the rate of 12 per centum interest until the same was paid, the deed was tainted with usury, and the calling the $120, to be paid annually, "rent," was a mere device to evade the usury laws. This title or deed was void, and, this being so, there was no title in Markham, and the verdict of the jury was unsupported by sufficient evidence to have authorized it. Judgment reversed.