Johnson v. Shattuck
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from White Chancery Court. Shattuck & Hoffman and Rives were the agents of the mortgage company, and the first loan was usurious.
Read the full summary
Appeal from White Chancery Court. Shattuck & Hoffman and Rives were the agents of the mortgage company, and the first loan was usurious. Interest could not be deducted for more than one year in advance. 60 Ark. 288. The usury was not purged by the second transaction, and appellee took subject thereto. 41 Ark. 331. Further, on the questions of usury and agency, see 54 Ark. 43; 51 Ark. 544. The parties who secured the loan were not the agents of appellee, and the bonus or commission paid to them was lawful. 57 N. W. 311, 51 Ark. 544.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
This action was instituted in the White chancery court by A. R. Shattuck, as trustee, and A. L. Richardson, against A. T. Jones and his wife, Anne Jones, for the purpose of foreclosing a mortgage which he executed on the 24th of December, 1892, to secure the payment of certain notes. The defendants answered that the notes were void for usury.
The facts, as we glean them from the evidence adduced at the hearing, are, substantially, as follows: In 1887 A. T. Jones applied, through Shattuck & Hoffman, to the British and American Mortgage Company, Limited, for the loan of $2,000. The mortgage…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Commonwealth Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. BryantCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1916
- Donaldson v. KenegySupreme Court of Iowa · 1924
- Moore v. BlackburnWashington Supreme Court · 1912
- Aldrich v. McClaySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905