Rossberg v. Holesapple

*556HENRIOD, Justice.

I dissent. The very facts related in the majority opinion make it appear that Rossberg’s specific intent was to sell a house, — not to loan money at an usurious rate. The intent to exact money at an usurious rate must be shown by clear and satisfactory evidence.4 Hardly can it be said that there is such clear and satisfactory proof, where Rossberg, primarily a realtor, got the Holesapples to sign a binding contract to buy a house, accepted $500 from them as a down payment, which he could have retained, volunteered to return it when the Holesapples reneged on their bargain,…