Case ID: va-patt-heath_1/html/0463-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "*GIEMER, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Sneed v. Smith.
    January Term, 1855,
    Richmond.
    Usury — Judgment—Bill to Enjoin — Proof.—Afiles a bill against B to enjoin a judgment on the ground of usury. The allegations of the hill are denied in the answer, and unsustained hy proof. Held :
    Such a hill should he dismissed, and whatever ground there may he on the face of the hill and answer to suspect usury ; in the absence qf proof relief should he denied. (Accord, wise v. Lamb, 9 Grat. p. 294.)
    James A. Smith filed his bill in 1847 in the Circuit Court of Mecklenburg-, praying an injunction against Joseph G. Sneed, to restrain him from further proceeding upon a judgment for $3,500 against the said plaintiff. The bill alleged that the judgment was one confessed by the plaintiff upon a bond for the amount stated, which bond was given in consideration of indebtedness from the plaintiff to the defendant, arising out of various usurious transactions, which were stated in detail; and it asked for a discovery from the defendant as to all the matters alleged.
    An injunction was granted as to the sum of $1,530 19, part of the judgment.
    The answer was somewhat contradictory and unsatisfactory, and by a careful examination and comparison of the bill and answer, grave suspicions of usury were produced ; but the 'fact of usury was fully denied, and no evidence was offered on either side.
    On the hearing of the case, the injunction was dissolved as to a part of the sum last mentioned, and perpetuated as to the remainder. From this decree Sneed appealed to this court.
    Stanard & Bouldin, for appellant.
    Macfarland & Rhodes, for appellee.
    
      
       See monographic note on “usury” appended to Coffman & Bruffy v. Miller, 26 Gratt. 698.
    
   *GIEMER, J.

The court is of opinion that, whatever grounds there may be for suspecting that the appellant exacted from the appellee usurious interest upon the various loans in the proceedings mentioned; as the allegations in the bill are denied in the answer and unsustained by proof, the appellee is not entitled to any relief. The court is also of opinion, for a similar reason, that the appellee is not entitled to any relief as to the credit of $350, claimed by him on account of the negotiable note in the bill mentioned; and that the said decree is, therefore, erroneous.

The other judges concurred in the opinion of GILMER, J.

Decree reversed.