Baird v. Millwood
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Garland Circuit Court in Chancery. J. B. Wood, Judge. 1. The taking of interest in advance is not usurious. 8 Wheat., 338, 364; 87 Ill., 51. Nor is the taking a commission or brokerage by the agent of the borrower. 51 íowa, 397; 26 Ark., 191; 25 Id., 195 ; 26 Id., 352; 18 Id., 463; 25 Id., 258; 21 N. Y., 531 to 539; 2 Tenn., 52; 1 Hilton, 532. 41 Ark., 331, sustains our position, pp. 337, 342-3.
1Opinion of the CourtHemingway, J.
This is a suit to foreclose a mortgage. The mortgagor answered, setting up usury in the mortgage debt. The court found that the mortgagee loaned two hundred dollars for three months, taking the note and mortgage sued on. That he reserved interest in advance, at ten per cent, per annum; that a broker, who procured the loan for the mortgagor, retained twelve dollars out of the sum for his services,.and also the fees for acknowledging and recording the mortgage. Upon these facts the court declared the law to be that, the note was usurious and void, and rendered judgment for the mortgagor. As…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Simpson v. Smith Savings SocietySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Habach v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Hickingbotham v. Industrial Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
- Short v. PullenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Richardson v. ShattuckSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.