Case Name: George Williamson v. Charles O. Cole
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1875-12
Citations: 26 Ohio St. 207
Docket Number: 
Parties: George Williamson v. Charles O. Cole.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 26
Pages: 207–207

Head Matter:
George Williamson v. Charles O. Cole.
Error to the District Court of Scioto county.
O. F. Moore, and J. W. Bannon, for plaintiff in error:
Before the passage of the act of February 18, 1848, money paid upon a promissory note given entirely for interest in excess of six per cent, upon a loan of money by the maker to the payee, could not be recovered back. Grayham v. Cooper, 17 Ohio, 606.
If a recovery can be had, it is not by force of the statute, but upon common-law principles. To warrant a recovery at common law, the money must have been paid on a usurious contract.
Our statute fixing the rate of interest is not a statute against usury, technically so called. Rcdns v. Scott, 13 Ohio, 114; Selser v. Brock, 3 Ohio St. 305.
Even if the act of paying interest in excess of six per cent, were illegal, or the contract under which the payment was made was technically usurious, there can be no recovery unless the payment was involuntary or coerced. For what is an involuntary or coerced payment, see 1 Ohio St. 278; 6 Ohio St. 471.

Opinion:
By the Court.
Usurious interest voluntarily paid car not be recovered back; and the payment of such interest by a borrower to obtain a reconveyance of land held by the lender as security for the loan, and which the latter refused to reeonvey without the payment of such interest, is voluntary.