King Brothers & Co. v. Moore
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- Commerce Finance Co. v. Perry (Ga. Ct. App. 1942)
- Hartsfield Co. v. Watkins (Ga. Ct. App. 1942)
- Commerce Finance Co. v. Perry (Ga. Ct. App. 1942)
- Feeney Hay Co. v. Suggs (Ga. Ct. App. 1939)
- Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Puckett (Ga. 1935)
- McGraw v. Planters Bank (Ga. 1934)
- Bennett v. Bennett (Ga. Ct. App. 1934)
- Jackson v. Johnson (Ga. 1924)
- Laing v. Hinesville Bank (Ga. Ct. App. 1923)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
1. “The essential requirements of a plea of usury, where the usury is sought to be recovered back or set off, being prescribed by statute, any defect in such a plea which results in a failure to comply with the statutory requirements is a defect in substance, and may be taken advantage of by a general demurrer in writing or an oral motion to strike.” Burnett v Davis, 124 Ga. 541 (52 S. E. 927); Civil Code (1910), § 5674.
2. “In so far as the action at bar was one to recover payment's of usury, it failed to set out with any reasonable degree of distinctness the claim sought to be asserted, and was insufficient.” Lee v. King, 142 Ga. 609 (3) (83 S. E. 272). Therefore it was error to overrule the demurrer which pointed out this defect.
3. Where a suit is not instituted for the purpose of recovering usurious payments of money, the same particularity of averments is not required. Carswell v. Partridge, 55 Ga. 412 (3); Hollis v. Covenant Building & Loan Association, 104 Ga. 318 (2), 322 (31 S. E. 215). If the prayer is to cancel an obligation for the payment of money, on the ground that it has been fully paid in so far as it is valid, the allegation, taken more strongly against the pleader, must unequivocally and clearly show that such payment in full has been Inade. In this respect the allegations in this case are not sufficient to withstand the demurrer.
4. “An action for the recovery of usury paid is barred in one year.” Lee v. King, supra; Civil Code (1910), § 3441.
5. The. features of the case dealt with in the preceding headnotes being fatal to the entire petition, other assignments of error need not be considered.
Judgment reversed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.