Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926

Westrope v. Abbott

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 12, 1926 · Watts, Messrs, Cothran, Beease, Stabler, Purdy, Gary

133 S.E. 465; 134 S.C. 502; 1926 S.C. LEXIS 67 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Messrs. Butler Hall , for appellants, cite: Effect of usury statute on oral promise to pay interest: 114 S.C. 362 ; 30 S.C. 61 . Cases distinguished: 110 S.C. 569 ; 77 S.C. 146 ; 68 S.C. 110 ; 63 S.C. 470 ; 55 S.C. 133 ; 39 S.C. 175 . Equity Court bound by usury statute: Ann. Cas. 1918-A, 747; 39 Cyc., 1009. Recovery of usurious loan; attorneys' fees: 49 S.C. 345 ; Civ. Code 1922, Secs. 3638 and 3639. Mr. R.T. Jaynes , for appellants, cites: Usurious contracts: 114 S.C. 362 ; 76 S.C. 460 ; 30 S.C. 61 . Cases distinguished: 77 S.C. 146 ; 39 S.C. 175 . Messrs. Dobson Vassy , for respondent, cite: Mistake of fact resulting in usury may be corrected: 68 S.C. 110 ; 110 S.C. 577 ; Bailey's Eq., 505; 138 U.S. 313 ; 1 Root (Conn.), 94; 39 Cyc., 922. Mistake of law resulting in usury no excuse: 114 S.C. 364 ; 76 S.C. 450 ; 72 S.C. 366 . Lapse of reasonable time after date of papers before completing loan will not render contract usurious: 132 Ark. 219 ; 21 A.L.R., 789; 60 S.W. 478; 16 N.J. Eq., 537 ; 39 Cyc., 956. When Court will reform contract: 100 S.C. 157 . Case distinguished: Ann. Cas. 1918-A, 747; 39 Cyc., 1016. Necessity of a writing to allow interest at eight per cent: 77 S.C. 146 ; 55 S.C. 143 ; 39 S.C. 194 .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Watts.

This is an appeal from a decree of his Honor, Judge Sease, which will be reported. Both his Honor, Judge Sease, and the Special Referee concurred in their findings of fact and against the contention of the appellants.

Judge Sease, by his decree, practically allowed the respondent to reform the contract; this he had the right to do. Both the Referee and Circuit Judge find that it was a mistake of parties; “was not tainted with usury, and is not serious [usurious?]; that all matters complained *508 of are traceable either to a mistake or error in calculation.” In this finding we agree, and see no error as complained of by the exceptions.

The exceptions are overruled, and judgment affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Cothran, Beease and Stabler and Mr. Acting Associate Justice R. O. Purdy concur. Mr. Chief Justice Gary did not participate.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.