Brown v. Polk
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge Bose Smith, J.
We have consolidated these three appeals, which are from separate foreclosure decrees obtained by the appellee Polk in suits involving three different mortgages. The various debtors contend that Polk’s claims are usurious and therefore void. The chancellor rejected this contention and entered a foreclosure decree in each case.
We may confine our discussion of the facts to Case No. 5-1828, which is typical of all three appeals. On December 13, 1956, the appellants Isiah Brown and his wife, to refinance a debt against their forty-acre farm, borrowed $4,000 from Polk. To evidence the debt the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Brooks v. BurgessSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
- Humphrey v. McCauleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
- Starling v. HamnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1932
- Hirsch v. PerkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
- Hughes v. HoldenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1958
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MEMPHIS, TENN. v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1971
- Cagle v. Boyle Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1977
- Cagle v. Boyle Mortgage Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1977