Thompson v. Ingram
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Faulkner Circuit Court. J. W. Martin, Judge. 1. The facts proven do not warrant the finding that W. J. Thompson was the owner of the note, and Walton making the loan for him. The money was placed in Walton’s hands as John F. Thompson’s money, to buy notes, and his action in loaning at usury could not affect Mr. T.’s right, nor could it affect W. J. Thompson’s rights if the money was his.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from Faulkner Circuit Court. J. W. Martin, Judge. 1. The facts proven do not warrant the finding that W. J. Thompson was the owner of the note, and Walton making the loan for him. The money was placed in Walton’s hands as John F. Thompson’s money, to buy notes, and his action in loaning at usury could not affect Mr. T.’s right, nor could it affect W. J. Thompson’s rights if the money was his. The taking of a bonus by the agent or lender from the borrower does not make usury, unless the principal knew it. 12 Cent. Rep., 631; reported 109 N. Y., Stillman v. Northop. .'See, also, 81 Am.…
1Opinion of the CourtHemingway, J.
This is an action brought by appellant on a promissory note. Appellees interposed a plea of usury. The court .found that the defendants executed the note sued on, payable -.to the order of Walton, as agent, for $300, with interest from date until paid at ten per cent. That the principal maker of the note received but $285 ; that W. J. Thompson, who advanced the money to Walton, only furnished him that amount; that W. J. Thompson was the owner of the note, and continued its owner until just before the suit was brought, a period of near three years, when Walton, as agent, by his •direction,…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Brown v. Lasalle ArcherMissouri Court of Appeals · 1895
- Habach v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
- Holt v. KirbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1893
- VanDeventer v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Sumpter v. Hot Springs Savings, Trust & Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1916