Short v. Pullen
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Little River Circuit Court. Will P. Fea£EL, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This is a suit on a promissory note. The defense is usury. The proof shows that appellees applied to one John C. Short, husband of the appellant, for the loan of four hundred and fifty dollars. Short did not have the money at the time, but informed appellees that he could get the money for them.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Little River Circuit Court. Will P. Fea£EL, Judge. STATEMENT BY THE COURT. This is a suit on a promissory note. The defense is usury. The proof shows that appellees applied to one John C. Short, husband of the appellant, for the loan of four hundred and fifty dollars. Short did not have the money at the time, but informed appellees that he could get the money for them. The terms of the loan, as agreed upon between Short and appellees, were that appellees would have to pay 12s per cent, for the use of the money. It was agreed between Short and appellees that they should give two…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts.) The judgment is contrary to the law and evidence. Gregory v. Bewly, 9 Ark. 22; Baird v. Millwood, 51 Ark. 548; Vahlberg v. Keaton, id. 534; Scruggs v. Scottish Mortg. Co., 54 id. 572,; May v. Flint, 54 id. 578; Blackburn v. Hayes, 59 id. 366; Holt v. Kirby, 57 Ark. 256.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Baird v. MillwoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1889
3Cited by4 opinions
- Rozen v. Redco CorporationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961
- Searl v. EarllDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1948
- Citizens' Bank v. HeywardSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1925
- Rozen v. Redco CorporationSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1961