Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1928

Graydon v. Standard Building & Loan Ass'n

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided May 7, 1928 · Carter, Watts, Messrs, Cothran, Beease, Stabeer

143 S.E. 259; 145 S.C. 551; 1928 S.C. LEXIS 94 (South Eastern Reporter)

Counsel

Mr. Wm. N. Graydon , for appellant, cites: "Usury": 15 S.C. 462 ; 12 Rich. Eq., 124; 30 S.C. 61 ; 38 S.C. 173 ; 30 S.C. 391 ; 72 S.C. 362 ; 76 S.C. 450 ; 65 S.C. 453 ; 65 S.C. 515 ; 62 S.C. 192 . To determine whether usurious or not: 92 S.C. 338 ; 65 S.C. 448 ; 104 S.C. 239 ; 110 S.C. 569 ; 114 S.C. 262 ; 129 S.C. 193 ; 132 S.C. 276 ; 133 S.C. 129 ; 2 McCords Chan., 9, 10; 135 S.C. 292 ; Id., 190. Messrs. Thomas Lumpkin , for respondent, cite: As to computation of interest: 15 R.C.L., 31; 10 L.Ed., 200 ; Venables Practical Arithmetic (Ed. 1873), 245; Twentieth Century Bookkeeping (15th Ed.), 128; 77 S.C. 143 . Exaction of more than legal interest through mistake does not constitute usury: 27 R.C.L., 22; 76 S.C. 450 ; 68 S.C. 110 ; 118 S.E., 454 . Eight per cent discount in advance approved .

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Carter.

This action by the plaintiff, Wm. N. Graydon, against the defendant, Standard Building & Loan Association, was commenced in the County Court for Richland County by service of summons and complaint for the purpose of recovery of judgment against the defendant in the sum of $3,-000 under allegations of usury. The case, by consent, was referred to the Master of Richland County for the purpose of taking the testimony and reporting the same, and upon the testimony reported by the Master the case was heard by Hon. M. S. Whaley, Judge of the County Court, who decided the issues adverse to' the plaintiff’s contention. From this order of his Honor, Judge Whaley, the plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

A careful study of the facts involved in the case, as disclosed by the transcript, convinces us that the conclusion reached by Judge Whaley was correct, and, for the reasons stated in the decree of his Honor, the appellant’s exceptions are overruled. Also the exceptions to the order settling the case for appeal are overruled.

It is, therefore the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the County Court of Richland County be and is hereby affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Watts, and Messrs. Justices Cothran, BeEasE, and StabeEr concur.

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