Court Opinion

ID: 9811060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:07:11.325114+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:40:25.286112
License: Public Domain

*534Davis, J.:
We think the Court below misapprehended the purpose of the several covenants upon which this action is brought and failed to interpret them correctly. They were independent covenants collateral to the agreement between the plaintiff, Bank, and the defendants, Bobbitt & ITines, and were intended to secure the former in the payment of any balance that might be ascertained to be due to it for advancements which it might make from time to time to the latter in carrying on their business under an agreement which was to terminate on the 31st of October, 1886, (unless discontinued before that time upon notice as stipulated) with interest thereafter on such balance at the rate of eight per cent, per annum.
The balance found to be due from the firm of Bobbitt & Hines to the plaintiff on the 31st day of October, 1886, as reported by the referee and affirmed by the Court, was $5,031.82, which, as appears from the credits, was subsequently reduced to $4,043.73, September 1st, 1887, and the plaintiff insists that the covenants were to secure this balance, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent, per annum till paid, and that they are entitled to judgment accordingly.
The defendants, on the contrary, insist that the plaintiff exacted and received usury from the firm of Bobbitt & ITines, and thereby forfeited the interest on this balance, and, in accordance with this contention, and upon motion of counsel for defendants, the Court adjudged “that the plaintiff recover from the defendants no interest on the balance due from the 31st of October, 1886, until the first of this term (April 21st, 1890).”
In this we think his Honor erred. Whether the balance ($4,043.73) found to be due was a correct balance, or whether it embraced any usurious interest or other item improperly charged, is not a question for our consideration, as that is the balance found to be due by the referee and affirmed by *535the Court below, from which there was no appeal by the defendants; and the sole question presented by the plaintiff’s appeal is: Was the plaintiff entitled to interest at eight per centum on this balance under the covenants executed by the defendants to secure the same?
It is too well settled to need citation of authority that, except as to questions of jurisdiction and the sufficiency of the complaint to constitute a cause of action, this Court will only consider questions presented b}r the appeal of the appellant, and even if it were agreed that exceptions taken and errors alleged by the appellee should be heard and passed upon with the appellant’s case on appeal, it could not be done without a departure from the settled practice of the Court. If both parties appeal, the appeal of one will not bring up the appeal of the other, and this rule cannot be waived by consent. Perry v. Adams, 96 N. C., 347, and cases cited. In the present case the defendants’ exceptions are not before us.
The covenants stipulate that the obligors shall secure the Bank of Oxford in the advances made to Bobbitt & Hines, including “all amounts drawn by them for any purpose whatever.” The fair and reasonable, in fact the only legal, interpretation that can be placed upon this is, that they shall secure the payment of all amounts ascertained to be legally due, and if any usurious advances, or advances upon any other illegal or improper consideration, were made, not only the defendants Bobbitt & Hines, but the sureties on the collateral covenants to secure the payment of any balance that might be ascertained, upon settlement, to be due the plaintiff, had a right to have anv illegal item or items stricken from the account wdiich would reduce,pro tanto, the balance; but that balance, wffien ascertained, would, under the agreement, bear interest from October 31, 1886, at eight per cent.
It is not pretended that the covenant contained any contract or stipulation for the payment of a greater rate of *536interest than is allowed by law. On the contrary, it is found that there was no such stipulation or agreement; but it is said that the Bank charged Bobbitt & Hines usurious interest on advancements made to them, and thereby forfeited all interest on the balance secured by the covenant. We are not called upon in the present case to say how it would be if the balance was increased by usurious interest; but even if it were so, and the referee and the Court below erred in finding that there was a balance due of $4,043.73, the question is not presented in this appeal. If the Court below failed or refused to strike any usurious or other illegal item from the account, whereby the balance due would be diminished, the defendants should have excepted and a; pealed, but they seem to have been satisfied with the judgment — at all events, failed to take and perfect an appeal therefrom, and we can only consider the error assigned by the appellant.
The defendants rely upon the case of Burwell v. Burgwyn, 100 N. C., 389. In that case there was an usurious contract, as alleged and found, and the question was presented by the appeal. In the | resent case, we fail to see, in the covenants, any contract for the payment of usury; in fact, it is found there was none; they only stipulate for the payment of the balance ascertained to be due, with interest thereon at eight per cent, till paid.
The Judge below had the power to review the findings of fact, as well as the conclusions of law, of the referee and to overrule, change, alter or modify them as he might think just and proper; but the findings of fact, if upon sufficient and competent evidence, are conclusive upon this Court, which has no control over the facts, and can only review the question of law presented by the appeal.
The balance found to be due from Bobbitt & Hines to the plaintiff, after deducting payment made since October 31st, 1886, was $4,043.73. and this sum is accepted, without appeal, as the correct balance, and by the clear, explicit and unmis*537takable language of the covenants, bears interest at the rate of eight per centum per annum till paid; and, without passing upon the plaintiff’s exceptions seriatim, or considering in detail the points presented by the learned counsel by whom they were forcibly and ably pressed upon our attention, we think the Court below erred in construing the covenants, and denying to the plaintiff interest at eight per cent, on .the balance ascertained to be due, as stipulated therein.
This interest should be on $4,043.73 from September 1st, 1887j the balance having been reduced by credits subsequent to October 31st, 1886, to that amount on said day, and the judgment below will be m .de to conform to this opinion.