Moore v. . Building and Loan Association

Connor, J. Plaintiff contends that on the facts alleged in the complaint and admitted by the demurrer he is entitled to recover of the defendant the sum of $287.76, this sum being twice the amount of interest charged by the defendant and paid by the plaintiff on the loan of money made by the defendant to the plaintiff, to wit: $143.38. It appears, however, from the complaint that the defendant charged and the plaintiff paid only the sum of $133.12, as interest on the loan, and that this sum is the interest on the loan at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the date of the loan to its payment; and that the sum of $10.26 was charged by defendant and paid by plaintiff as fines for the defaults of plaintiff in the payment of the amounts which he had undertaken to pay weekly, and which were required to mature his stock, in accordance with the by-laws of the defendant. The plaintiff during the time of the transactions alleged in the complaint sustained a dual relation to the defendant. He was both a stockholder and a borrower of the defendant. Rendleman v. Stoessel, 195 N. C., 640, 143 S. E., 219. He was charged and paid the fines aggregating the sum of $10.26, as a stockholder, while he paid the interest, to wit, $133.12, as a borrower. Only the latter sum was paid as interest, and as this sum did not exceed the interest on the loan at the rate of six per centum per annum, the defendant did not charge, and the plaintiff did not pay usury. Plaintiff is not entitled, therefore, to recover the statutory penalty for usury in this action, and there was no error in the judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action. The fines collected by the defendant from the plaintiff were authorized by the by-laws of the defendant. These by-laws were expressly authorized by statute. C. S., 5178. This is a valid statute, and was enacted by the General Assembly, doubtless in consequence of decisions of this Court rendered prior to its enactment. The judgment is Affirmed.