Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

195 N.C. 459

142 S.E 477

Nance v. . Welborne

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided April 11, 1928

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1928-04-11

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently February 1923

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1928-04-11

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Stacy, C. J.

¶1 A borrower employs an attorney and pays Mm $5.00 for preparing note and chattel mortgage and securing extension or renewal of a loan of $40.00 for 60 days. Does the payment of this fee to the borrower’s attorney amount to exaction of usury on the part of the lender who knew nothing of the arrangement between the borrower and his attorney? The question answers itself in the negative. Speas v. Bank, 188 N. C., 524, 125 S. E., 398; Miller v. Dunn and Abdallah v. Dunn, 188 N. C., 397, 124 S. E., 746; Waters v. Garris, 188 N. C., 305, 124 S. E., 334.

¶2 Affirmed.

/195/nc/459 · .json · Public domain