Hollan v. American Bank of Commerce & Trust Co.

This court is definitely committed to the rule if “a promise to pay a sum above legal interest depends on a contingency, and not upon the happening of a certain event, the loan is not usurious.” Reeves v. Building & Loan Ass’n, 56 Ark. 335; Briant v. Carl-Lee Bros., 158 Ark. 62.

If therefore there was a valid and enforceable contract between the parties for renewals of the notes until sales of the automobiles could be made, then there existed such a contingency as rendered it uncertain whether the rate of interest would or would not ultimately exceed ten per centum per annum, and the loans…