Long v. McGregor
Long v. McGregor
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We find in the record no cause to disapprove the conclusion reached by the chancellor as to the facts ; and as to the law, it is quite clear that a court of equity has jurisdiction to annul a sale and titles, made and procured by the methods exhibited in the testimony for appellees, and which was accepted as true by the chancellor.
On the authority of Parchman v. McKinney, 12 S. and M. 631, it must be said, that there being special circumstances which justified resort to equity in the first place, it was not necessary for appellees to have offered in their bill, to pay interest at the legal rate, as a condition precedent to obtaining relief against usurious interest. This is contrary to the general doctrine on the subject.; but it has long been the rule in this State, under statutes regulating the matter of. interest, a2id
Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. P. Long v. M. E. McGregor
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Chancery Jurisdiction. Selling aside sale under deed of trust. Case in judgment. M. executed two deeds of trust on certain land in favor of L. and P. respectively, to secure debts due them. The amount due L. was composed largely of usury. L. and P. collusively agreed to sell the land under both deeds at exactly the same time, but at different places, to buy the same in and divide the profits. But M. was about to sell the land at private sale for much more than sufficient to pay off both debts. So L,, to prevent the sale, went to M. and offered to buy in the land at the sale under his trust deed, pay P., and hold the land until M. could redeem. M. consented. N bought the land at an inadequate price, went into possession and afterwards refused to allow M. to redeem. M. filed his bill to set aside the sale, and asking that the deed to L. be cancelled and the land resold, and the debts of L. and P. be paid out of the proceeds after the debt of L. was purged of usury. The chancellor granted the relief asked. Held, that a court of equity had jurisdiction in such case to annul the sale and title. 2. Same. Usury. Offer to do equity when not necessary. And in such case it was not necessary for the complainant to offer to pay legal interest in order to obtain relief from usurious interest, there being other circumstances justifying a resort to equity. Parchman v. McKinney, 12 S. and M. 631, cited, which is based upon a statute providing a forfeiture of all interest when an illegal rate is charged.