Tennille Banking Co. v. Quinn
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Taylor v. Merchants Mutual Credit Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 1959)
- Poulk v. Cairo Banking Co. (Ga. 1924)
- Tennille Banking Co. v. Quinn (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. Where usurious interest is reserved for a loan of money contracted since the year 1916, and in a suit by the lender against the debtor a judgment is rendered for the principal amount only, the interest being forfeited by virtue of the provisions of the act of 1916 (Acts 1916, p. 48; Park’s Ann. Code, Supp. 1922, § 3438),'providing for a forfeiture of the entire interest when usury is charged, such judgment does not bear interest. Daniel v. Gibson, 72 Ga. 367 (2 a) (53 Am. R. 845) ; Danforth v. National Rank of Elizabeth, 48 Fed. 271 (17 L. R. A. 622, 1 C. C. A. 62). And this is so notwithstanding Civil Code (1910), § 3432, which provides that “ All judgments in this State bear lawful interest upon the principal amount recovered!’ -The act of 1916 prohibits the recovery of any interest where usury is charged. See Daniel v. Gibson, supra.
2. Where a plaintiff sues upon a promissory hote which bears interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum from maturity, and the defendant pleads usury and charges that a certain sum has been reserved as usu
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.