Usury, or Oker; is the taking, or agreeing to take, in return for the loan of money, more than the legal interest in the place where the loan is contracted. Before the Reformation, while taking of interest was prohibited, wadsets and rights of annual rent were usual and very injurious covers for loans, and were justly superseded by rendering a stipulation for interest legal. The statute of 12 Anne, sess. 2, c. 16, which in a great measure supersedes the statutes 1594, c. 222; 1597, c. 251; and 1621, c. 28, made five per cent, the legal interest of Britain; describes the crime of usury; and fixes as its consequences, penalties and nullity.
Definition source
Bell, William, A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland, 7th ed. rev. George Ross (Edinburgh: Bell & Bradfute, 1861), s.v. “Usury.” Public domain.
Legal Subject: Usury |
| Case | Date | Legal Subject | Abstract |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allan v. Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton | 1806 | Debt, Bankruptcy, Bill of Exchange, Sequestration, Prescription, Usury | The executors of William Walker, Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton, pursued Robert Allan, a banker in Edinburgh, to recover statutory penalties for usurious transactions he had conducted with Sinclair and Williamson. Allan defended the action on the grounds that the claim was barred by prescription and failed to satisfy statutory requirements. |
| Crosby and Attorney v. Maidment | 1798 | Debt, Aliment, Creditor, Assignment, Usury, Interest | |
| Gloag v. Thomson and Others | 1793 | Debt, Usury, Bill of Exchange, Interest, Aliment, Creditor | Gloag petitioned the Court of Session to alter the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, which had assoilzied Thomson and the other defenders from an action for repayment of a £50 counter-bill. He subsequently petitioned again to alter the Court's subsequent interlocutor in the same cause. The representatives of James Thomson argued that the £50 bill was valid and that a prior bill for £107 10s had been paid. |
| Hugh Montgomery v. Strang, Lennox and Company | 1798 | Decreet-Arbitral, Tack, Arbitration, Usury, Reduction, Interlocutor | Strang, Lennox and Company, cotton-spinners in Eaglesham, petitioned the Court to alter a recent interlocutor respecting their claim for damages against Hugh Montgomery of Bogstown, suspender, arising from a prior loan and arbitration dispute. Montgomery submitted answers opposing the chargers' application. |
Documents discussing this subject (17)
- Alexander Ross v. Kenneth Matheson & Son — Opinion, 19 Jun 1847
- ANSWERS FOR The GOVERNOR and Company of the Bank of England; TO THE PETITION of the Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland, Messrs. DOUGLAS, HERON, and Company, and others, t
- Executors of the late William Walker and Others v. Robert Allan — Memorial, 24 Jun 1806
- General-Collection-of-Session-Papers-1831-12-FEB--23-FEB-221-224-257 doc0112
- Gloag v. Thomson and Others — Petition, 17 Dec 1793
- Gloag v. Thomson and Others — Petition, 30 Nov 1793
- James Gloag v. Isobel, Elizabeth, and Bethia Thomsons — Answers, 7 Jan 1794
- James Lawson v. Mrs Margaret Halli-Burton, or Cochrane — Replies
- John Watson v. Sarah Marshall and Others — petition, 23 Nov 1781
- John Watson v. Sarah Marshall — answers, 13 Dec 1781
- Messrs Surtees, Burdon, and Embleton v. Robert Allan — Memorial, 12 Nov 1806
- Mrs Emira Willison Clark and Ferdinand Scheniman v. Mrs Jamina Gibson and Daniel M‘Gown — Answers, 8 Sep 1825
- Mrs Mary Scott alias Aitchison and Robert Aitchison v. David Kyle — Answers, 28 Jun 1800
- No. IV. ANSWERS for WILLIAM WALKER and others, Creditors of Mess. SINCLAIR and WILLIAMSON, late Merchants in Leith, to the Additional Condescendence for ROBERT ALLAN, Banker in Edi
- Petition — Mrs E. W. Clark & Husband against Lord Medwyn's Interlocutors
- Strang, Lennox and Company v. Hugh Montgomery — Answers, 23 Feb 1798
- William Johnstone v. James Ferguson — Replies, 1 Jul 1762
