Federal Reserve Bank v. Jones

CONNOR, J. There was no error at the trial of this action in the Forsyth County Court in the failure of the judge of said court to submit issues to the jury. The admissions made by the parties, after the jury was empanelled to try the issues raised by the pleadings dispensed with the necessity of submitting issues to the jury. The facts admitted were sufficient to support a judgment in the action, determining the *650 rights of the parties under the law applicable to these facts. Defendant’s exceptions with respect to the issues were properly overruled by the Superior Court. C. S., 568. Under the law in this State, a note executed and delivered as evidence of the promise of the maker to pay to the payee or his order a sum of money which has been loaned by the payee to the maker, is not void, although the payee has, knowingly, taken, received, reserved, or charged interest on the note at a greater rate than six per cent per annum, which is the legal rate in, this State; only the promise, in such case, to pay interest is void. C. S., 2306. For this reason, the payee in an action to recover on a note on which he has charged or received usury, may recover the principal of said note only. In such cases, the entire interest is forfeited. The promise to pay such interest is void and will not be enforced by the court. Ward v. Sugg, 113 N. C., 489, 18 S. E., 717. When a note, on which the payee has charged or received usury, and which is negotiable in form, has been endorsed and delivered by the payee, before maturity, for value, and without notice of any defect in the title of the payee, or of any equity which the maker is entitled to enforce against the payee, to a third person, who thereby becomes a holder in due course of the note, such holder in an action on the note may recover of the maker the principal of the note, but cannot recover interest thereon, for the reason that the law declares the promise to pay interest, in such case, void. The note is void as to interest, whether at the time the action is commenced, it is in the hands of the payee, or in the hands of a holder in due course. This is the declaration of the law. It is so provided by the statute, that the policy of this State which condemns usury both as illegal and as immoral may be enforced by the courts. In the instant case, the withholding by the Peoples’ National Bank from the defendant of the sum of $2,000, although a device adopted by the bank and acquiesced in by the defendant, to evade prima facie the statute, did not render the note void as to the sum withheld, in the hands of either the bank or the plaintiff. The defendant had an equity to have the note credited with said sum, at its maturity. This equity the defendant could have enforced against the bank, but cannot enforce against the plaintiff, who is a holder in due course. C. S., 3038. There is no error in the judgment of the Superior Court affirming the judgment of the county court. Affirmed.