Bell v. Tindall

Bell, in. his bill herein, asserted Tindall had loaned him money and contracted and collected more than eig’ht per cent interest, thereby forfeiting all interest, as provided in Section 36, Miss. Code 1942.

Tindall admitted he provided the money but denied it was a loan. He said he bought Bell’s notes at a discount. That is the only question to be determined. If the transaction was a loan, more than eight per cent interest was charged; if Tindall purchased notes at a discount he had a right to do that, even though the amounts evidenced by the notes was greater than the *347principal advanced by…