Court Opinion

ID: 3380538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 18:27:43.503345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:41.696172
License: Public Domain

In this case, which involved the issue of usury, the master in chancery found from the evidence that the alleged usurious device relied on as a ground for forfeiture of the complainant's rights, was a plan which was the creation of the defendant and his agents, and practiced by defendant upon complainant whom defendant knew might be interested, in purchasing a mortgage at a large discount. The master also found that when complainant agreed to purchase the mortgage being foreclosed by him, that he was not advised of the usurious scheme which had been devised *Page 617 
to get the money by making the mortgage a dummy mortgage for an amount vastly in excess of the principal and then selling it to complainant at a large discount in the principal amount. The master's findings were sustained by the Chancellor, who entered his decree in accordance therewith. A majority of the Court are of the opinion that it has not been sufficiently shown that the Chancellor's findings are clearly wrong, so as to warrant a reversal of the decree solely on the evidence. Therefore the decree appealed from should be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Affirmed.
DAVIS, C. J., and WHITFIELD, TERRELL and BROWN, J. J., concur.
BUFORD and ELLIS, J. J., dissent.