Legal Opinion

VanDeventer v. Smith

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 8, 1916PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal from .Benton Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Judge; The loan was usurious and void. Cates was the agent of the lender. 62 Ark. 378; 51 Id. 544;"Kirby’s Digest, § § 5390-1. To sustain the plea of usury; it must be shown that the bonus or commission was paid with the knowledge of the lender to the agent of the lender, and that such bonus when added to the interest exceeds the lawful rate. 51 Ark. 534; lb. 546; 62 Id. 370; 83 Id. 31; 91 Id. 458 ;105 Id. 653; 60 Id.…

Read the full summary

Appeal from .Benton Chancery Court; T. H. Humphreys, Judge; The loan was usurious and void. Cates was the agent of the lender. 62 Ark. 378; 51 Id. 544;"Kirby’s Digest, § § 5390-1. To sustain the plea of usury; it must be shown that the bonus or commission was paid with the knowledge of the lender to the agent of the lender, and that such bonus when added to the interest exceeds the lawful rate. 51 Ark. 534; lb. 546; 62 Id. 370; 83 Id. 31; 91 Id. 458 ;105 Id. 653; 60 Id. '288; 98 IT. S. 103; 51 Ark. 546. .Cates was not appellee’s agent and she had no knowledge of any bonus being paid.

1Opinion of the Court

■Smith, J.

Appellant brought suit to cancel a mortgage and a note which it secured upon the ground that the debt there secured was usurious. The note was for the sum of $700, due twelve months after date, and bore interest at 10 per cent, after maturity. It was alleged that the agreement under v^hich the loan was made was an unlawful and usurious one whereby appellee was to, and did, retain, $100 for the use of the remaining $600 for one year. The answer denied all the material allegations of the complaint and in a. eross-ibill the foreclosure of the mortgage was prayed. In the answer it was…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Vahlberg v. KeatonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
  2. Thompson v. IngramSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Armstrong v. McCluskeySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
  2. Sumpter v. Hot Springs Savings, Trust & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API