Cagle v. Boyle Mortgage Co.

I am unable to understand how the court could reverse the chancellor’s finding that the obligation of appellants to appellee was free of usury. This was a finding of fact. Appellants had the burden of demonstrating error in the holding of the trial court. Hendrix v. Hendrix, 256 Ark. 289, 506 S.W. 2d 848; Holt v. Holt, 253 Ark. 456, 486 S.W. 2d 688; Poindexter v. Cole, 239 Ark. 471, 389 S.W. 2d 869. In this case, this was a very heavy burden, indeed.

The sole point for reversal was that the court erred in finding that the note and mortgage-executed by appellants were free of usury. Admittedly,…