Nance v. . Welborne

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Nance v. . Welborne, 142 S.E. 477 (N.C. 1928)
195 N.C. 459; 1928 N.C. LEXIS 121
Stacy

Nance v. . Welborne

Opinion of the Court

Stacy, C. J.

A borrower employs an attorney and pays Mm $5.00 for preparing note and chattel mortgage and securing extension or renewal of a loan of $40.00 for 60 days. Does the payment of this fee to the borrower’s attorney amount to exaction of usury on the part of the lender who knew nothing of the arrangement between the borrower and his attorney? The question answers itself in the negative. Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524, 125 S. E., 398; Miller v. Dunn and Abdallah v. Dunn, 188 N. C., 397, 124 S. E., 746; Waters v. Garris, 188 N. C., 305, 124 S. E., 334.

Affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
D. R. Nance v. Olden Welborne.
Cited By
1 case
Status
Published