Hynes v. Stevens
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court in Chancery. Jephtha H. Bvans, Judge. Whether the original agreement was usurious or not, it matters not now; as that note was paid off. There was no usury in the $110.50 note, as the bank only deducted the interest in advance. 60 Ark. 288. Nor was there any in the Hays note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court in Chancery. Jephtha H. Bvans, Judge. Whether the original agreement was usurious or not, it matters not now; as that note was paid off. There was no usury in the $110.50 note, as the bank only deducted the interest in advance. 60 Ark. 288. Nor was there any in the Hays note. It may be true that, long after the agreement, two $20 notes were executed, and were usurious, but this subsequent usurious agreement for the extension of valid notes could not taint the original notes or discharge the lien on the land. No authorities need be cited on this point.
1Opinion of the CourtBunn, C. J.
The facts in this case are that appellee had purchased the SB J of SB k oí section 34, township 10 north, range 32 west, from the Bittle Rock & Rort Smith Railway Company for the sum of $120, and given his note therefor, less $30 cash, and taken bond for title, conditioned in the usual way. The $90 were to be paid in three equal annual instalments, and deed to be made when all the instalments were paid.
On December 17, 1888, plaintiff Stevens borrowed of defendant Hynes, as cashier of the Crawford county bank, $100, and executed his promissory note to him for $120, of that date, due November…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Daniels v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1961
- Hughes v. HoldenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
- Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. v. SchlangerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Sager v. SteinbrennerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
- Hughes v. HoldenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958