German Bank v. DeShon
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from PulasM Circuit Court. M. L, Rice, Special Judge. The note is a negotiable instrument, Gantt’s Digest, sec.. 566, and the bank is an innocent holder for value before maturity and by sec. 4, Act Peb’y 9, 1875, the note is valid, notwithstanding any usury between original parties.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from PulasM Circuit Court. M. L, Rice, Special Judge. The note is a negotiable instrument, Gantt’s Digest, sec.. 566, and the bank is an innocent holder for value before maturity and by sec. 4, Act Peb’y 9, 1875, the note is valid, notwithstanding any usury between original parties. Although the language of the Constitution makes usurious contracts void, yet.the word “void” has been construed to mean “voidable” ' in many cases. 2 Hill, 522; 13' Mass., 518 ; 3 Met., 448 ; 3 Oowen, 89. Though a statute provide that a negotiable instrument shall be void, it.is nevertheless valid in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Battle, Special Judge.
William A. Fatherly executed his promissory note, bearing date the eighth day of July, 1878, and thereby promised to pay, ninety days after the date thereof, to his own order, the sum of sixteen hundred- and fifty dollars, and ten per centum per annum interest thereon from the maturity of the note until paid,, and. Francis' E. Ashley and A. G. DeShon endorsed it. The-note was executed and endorsed for the purpose of borrowing money. After Ashley and DeShon endorsed the note, William D. Blocher gave Fatherly his check on the German bank for the sum of sixteen hundred and…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Fleckner v. President of the Bank of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1823
- Andrews v. PondSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- Good v. MartinSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Lloyd v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
- Munn v. President & Directors of Commission Co.New York Supreme Court · 1818
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Sloan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
- Sabine v. . PaineNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Garvin v. LintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
- Winston v. Personal Finance Co. of Pine Bluff, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.