57 S.E. 180 | S.C. | 1907
March 26, 1907. The opinion of the Court was delivered by This action was brought under the usury statute to recover seven hundred and forty-two dollars and seventy-two cents, double the amount of all interest paid on a note of which the following is a copy: *451
"$700.00. Greenville, S.C. Nov. 25th, 1898.
On December 1st, 1899, after date, we or either of us, I promise to pay to the order of B.M. McGee, and payable at Greenville, S.C. without offset, the sum of seven hundred no-100 dollars, for value received. Interest after maturity at the rate of eight per cent. per annum until paid, with ten per cent. attorney's fee should this note be collected by law. Interest to be paid or computed annually at same rate until paid in full. M.T. Plyler."
On the trial the defendant admitted that he had computed and collected compound interest instead of annual interest, supposing that to be his right. The Circuit Judge directed a verdict for the amount claimed.
The questions made in the ingenious argument of appellant's counsel have been settled against his contention: Honest belief by the defendant in his legal right to collect compound interest under the terms of the note cannot avail him. Bank v. Parrott,
The position that the defendant did not receive any excess interest which he had charged and contracted for, and therefore the transaction did not fall under the last clause of section 1663 of the Civil Code, is equally untenable. To charge means to lay a burden on. This is the meaning applied in Ehrhardt v. Varn,
It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of the Circuit Court be affirmed.
