Dickey v. Bank of Clarksdale

Ethridg’e, J.,

delivered an. opinion dissenting in part.

I dissent from the majority opinion in two respects: First, I think the charging of interest for 360' days, as a year, and then for the five extra days as a fractional part of a year, violates our statute, and constitutes usury; second, I think that when that transaction was divided up in renewal by taking different notes, having different dates of maturity and, in the case of some of the notes, having different dates, it was a dividing of the transaction into several independent transactions, each standing independently of the others,…