Hiner v. Whitlow
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court in Chancery* Edgar E. Bryant, Judge. The court erred in finding that the note and contract were not usurious. This court has the same means of reaching a correct conclusion as the chancellor, and will reverse his decree if against the decided preponderance of evidence. 41 Ark. 292; 13 Ark. 350; 15 Ark. 209; 23 Ark. 341; 55 Ark. 112. Appellants are not in a position to plead usury. 32 Ark. 346; 61 Ark. 329.
1Opinion of the CourtBattle, J.
“On July 31, 1896, appellee filed his complaint in this action against appellants, alleging that on Febi’uary 20, 1891, one Watts and wife made a mortgage to Bleecker Luce to secure the loan of $1,600, made by H. L. Monroe, conveying certain described real estate in the city of Port Smith, and that said Luce and Monroe in 1891 assigned said debt and mortgage to appellee; that on April 5, 1893, said Watts and wife sold their equity in such property to said H. L. Monroe, who, on January 12, 1894, sold and conveyed said property to one Vance, who assumed the mortgage;” that after-wards, on the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Freeman v. . AuldNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Stiger v. BentIllinois Supreme Court · 1884
- Pickett v. Merchants' National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1877
- Morris v. FloydNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Hardin v. HydeNew York Supreme Court · 1863
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- United States Bond & Mortgage Co. v. KeaheySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Crawford v. General Contract CorporationDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1959
- Higbee v. Aetna Bldg. & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. NeighborSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916
- Bailey v. Commerce Union BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.