The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-03-17
LAW GOVERNING USURY
xyUPREME COURT OPINION As TO
ILLEGAL INTEREST.


among the opinions handed down IN the
supreme court of appeals yester.ay was
that in the case OF Ryan against Krise.
In which Judge Lacy reversed the de-
cision OF the Circuit Court OF Lynch
burg, rendered May %. 1890. Judges Lewis
and Richardson dissenting.
In August, 1888. the appellant fled his
bin in the Circuit Court OF Lynchburg
setting forth that on August 2. 1888. he
had recovered judgment by confession in
the clerks Office for 81, 300 with interest
from October l. 1887. and costs. and the
bill is hied against z. A. Krise. the APP
pellee. and no other person. the judgment
debtors not being made parties to the
suit.
The complaint is that within the five
years preceding the Ming Of the bill,
usufious dealings were had by the judg-
ment debtors with the defendant, praying
tbat he might be made party defendant
10 the bill. and required 10 answer the
same; and that the cause might be re-
ferred TO Il Commissioner Of the court
10 inquire into all contracts and bargains
relative TO the usurious dealings. and re-
port to the court the amounts Of illegal
interest received 10y the defendant. which
interest should be used TO satisfy the
compliments judgment for general re-
lief.
The demurrer Of the defendant was over
ruled In the court May II. 1889. and or
dered according to the prayer Of the bill;
but during the term this order was set
aside. three other causes being ordered
10 be heard with this, and an account
ordered
The total amount OF discount according
TO the commissioners account was sl0.-
$3.50. Amount OF legal interest, $Si6l.H.
and excess Of legal interest, T,4S942. The
amount due the several plaintiffs was
S,345.J5. The amount due the defendant
by Samuel b. Rucker q Co.. WAS fixed
at about s1l,OOO
The commissioners report was ap-
proved. and the court decided that the
bills Of the plaintiffs be dismissed with
costs, and ordered that defendant credit
fucker d Co, with all sums charged In
excess of legal interest
THE question TO be decided in the case"
says Judge Lacy in his opinion. is,
what is the true construction Of the
statute?"
The opinion quotes Mr. Blackstone as
stating that In the constitution Of all
remedial statutes and this case comes
under the remedial statute there are
three points TO be considered-the old
law. the mischief and the remedy. 1t
slider the act as TO suppress the mischief
and advance the remedy. The statute
under which the case falls is rather
statute against fraud. than Il penal
statute, as has been argued, and should
be construed literally.
when counts are interpreting n
statute" reads the opinion, the thing
TO seek is the thought which IT expresses.
To ascertain this the first result is 10
ascertain the natural Specification Of the
words employed In the order in which
they stand"
The sixth section Of the statute provided
for mode OF defense to an action Of
an usurious contract. In the seventh sec
ton the borrower IS authorized TO file
his bill against the lender and compel a
discovery, and II usury was established,
the lender was TO have his principal
money and pay costs, and the eighth
section provides that the borrower pay
ing such usurious interest can recover IL
by suit.
III under the law at the time Of the
enactment" says Judge Lacy. such suit
should have been brought by n judgment
creditor. and the usury established. if the
defendant had asked to have the usuriOus
interest applied 10 the eXtinguishment OF
the principal money due under this usu-
riOus contract. so far as IL would 80. the
contract is void in its entirety. and there
is no valid debt existing against the
debtor. usury having been established or
admitted"
The opinion afiirms that under the
eighth section of this statute the borrower
had right for a year To bring his suit
and recover back the usurious interest;
but he has not awaited himself
OF his legal rights; this rene
dy has gone. TO credit II upon
his principal debt is 10 refund 1t to him.
- To- hot 80
terest having been once established. shall
be applied To the satisfaction of the
plaintiffs demand; TO apply II to the
satisfaction of the principal debt and
legal interest Is TO apply IL 10 pay the
borrowers debt This suit is not for his
benefit, but for the benefit of the judy
ment creditors demand.
The opinion further reads that the
present statute bearing on the case is
virtually the same as that OF lS49 upbn
which the opinion was practically based.
The other opinions handed down were:
Whiting and others against the town
OF West Point. Upon petition for "A
writ OF mandamus. Demurrer overruled
and rule discharged Judge Lewis deliv-
ering opinion.
Richmond and Danville Railroad Com
pany against Brown. From Circuit Court
OF Pittsylvania county. Affirmed, Judge
Lacy delivering opinion, Judge Richard |
son dissenting.
Turner's administrator against Thorn.
trustee. From Corporation Court Of Nor
folk. Reversed, Judge Hinton delivering
opinion.
Norfolk and Western Railroad Company
against Catcher. Rehearing denied.
Mitchell against Commonwealth. Further
argued by William NJ Flanagan. Esq,
for plaintiff in error. and Major II. Taylor
Scott. for Commonwealth, and submitted.
Lewis against Commonwealth 1.-TWO cases).
Argued by j. w. c. Blackstone for plain
tin in error. and Major X. Taylor Scott
for Commonwealth. and submitted.
Forbes against Commonwealth
Morris against Jones, trustee. and Mar |
shall against Pulmer. Continued
ProfIett against Anderson. Set for to- |
morrow.
Trumbo's administrator against City |
Street Car Company, Roach against |
Blakey and Shifilett against Dowell Sub
united.
Shitfiett against Common Wealth. Passed.
JUSTICE JOHNS COURT.