76 N.C. 314 | N.C. | 1877
The statements of the two parties who were examined as witnesses differed widely as to what their contract was. As it was stated to be by the plaintiff it was not usurious. As stated by the defendant we think it was. The Judge instead of leaving it to the jury upon the conflicting evidence as to what the contract was, instructed them in effect that even if they believed the contract to have been as stated by the defendant it was not usurious. We think he misconceived the decision in Bledsoe v.Nixon,
The act entitled Usury in the Rev. Code which was the one in force at the date of the contract between these parties has always been considered as forbidding compound interest.
The Act making an exception in favor of guardians was a legislative exposition of the meaning of the Usury Act in *316 that sense. The evidence that the plaintiff had been sued for usury and was reputed an usurer was properly rejected.
PER CURIAM. Judgment reversed.