To the plaintiff’s suit on a promissory note the defendant-appellant answered that the plaintiff did not loan him the face amount of the note sued on; rather he received a lesser sum, the difference amounting to more than eight per *598 cent per annum and, therefore, the loan contract was usurious, null and void.
The defendant appeals from the grant of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and enumerates the same as error. Held:
There was no error. Defendant relies upon
Loganville Banking Co. v. Forrester,
Under the decisions of this court (e. g.,
Robbins v. Welfare Finance Corp.,
There has been no contention on this appeal that the loan fee and various insurance premiums were not in accordance with or unauthorized by the law or the debtor, or were improperly calculated in any regard.
Judgment affirmed.
