Court Opinion

ID: 9602113
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:51:55.668586+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:00.834632
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Pannell, Judge.
Appellee contends that the following controlling cases were overlooked by the court in rendering its *105decision, to wit: McCrary v. Woodard, 122 Ga. 793 (50 SE 941), and Lyle v. Mandeville Mills, 68 Ga. App. 88 (22 SE2d 186). Neither of these cases was decided under a Small Loan Act, which prohibited the "contracting for” usury as a result of which the contract would be void. The usurious interest was merely written off or only interest to date of judgment was allowed. While these cases dealt with acceleration clauses, they did not deal with acceleration clauses which were prohibited by the Act under which the loan was made. These cases are, therefore, neither applicable nor controlling.
Garrett v. G.A.C. Finance Corp., 129 Ga. App. 96 (198 SE2d 717) did not decide or have involved therein the question presented and decided in the present case.

Motion for rehearing denied.