delivered the opinion of the Court: Our act of Assembly on this subject, is copied from the 12Hi Ann. ch. 16, and the construction given to this latter statute, ought to be given to ours. It is laid down by Lord Chief-Justice De Grey, in the case of Loyd qui tam v. Williams, (3 Wills. 261,) that “wherever parties make a contract for monies or other tilings and above the rate of five per centum per annum is received by the lender, the offence against the statute is complete; and even if the principal money shall never be paid, yet the offence is committed.” Judgment for the Plaintiff.
Seawell v. Shomberger, 6 N.C. 200, 2 Mur. 200 (1812)
July 1812
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
6 N.C. 200, 2 Mur. 200
John Seawell v. William Shomberger.
1 From Moore.
Action qui tam. — In an action to recover the penalty given by the statute against usury, it is not necessary to shew that the principle money has been paid. The offence is complete, when any thing is received for the forbearance, over and above the rate of six per cent per year.
This was an action qui tam, to recover the penalty given by the statute against usury ; and the facts were, that one J abez York was indebted to the Defendant upon a judgment rendered by a Justice of the Peace, and for forbearing the payment of the said judgment, the Defendant accepted and received from York a sum greater than at the rate, of six per cent, per year. The principal sum was unpaid, when the action was brought, and the question submitted to this Court was, whether as the principal sum was not paid, the Defendant was liable for one double the amount thereof, (the penalty given by the statute.)