The opinion
We see no error in this appeal. The question of time for which plaintiff is allowed to recover is decided in plaintiff's appeal — that there was no error in the court's holding that plaintiff could only recover for usurious interest paid within two years next before commencing his action; and the only other question presented by this appeal is as to what amount the plaintiff should recover. A jury trial was waived and the judge found the facts, and his findings of fact can no more be reviewed by this Court than if they had been found by a jury. Walnut v. Wade , 103 U.S., p. 688 (436) We can only review him upon questions of law. The counsel on both sides contend that his findings of fact — the amount of plaintiff's recovery — are not correct, plaintiff contending it should have been for more, and defendant contending it should have been for a less amount. But as we find that his findings were based upon correct principles of law, they are conclusive. There is no error and the judgment is
Affirmed.
Cited: Smith v. Loan Assn. , 119 N.C. 255 , 261 ; Hollowell v. Loan Assn. , 120 N.C. 287 ; Gillam v. Ins. Co. , 121 N.C. 373 ; Carter v. *Page 274 Ins. Co. , 122 N.C. 339 ; Churchill v. Turnage, ib. , 433; Meares v. Butler , 123 N.C. 209 ; Tayloe v. Parker , 137 N.C. 419 ; Matthews v. Fry , 143 N.C. 385 ; Gulledge v. R. R. , 147 N.C. 235 ; Hall v. R. R. , 149 N.C. 110 ; Stokes v. Cogdell , 153 N.C. 182 ; State's Prison v. Hoffman , 159 N.C. 568 ; Buchanan v. Clark , 164 N.C. 61 .