Legal Opinion

Home Building & Savings Ass'n v. Shotwell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 27, 1931PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). When a bona fide sale of land is intended, the vendor may charge a much higher price for his property on a credit than he would have done for cash for the element of lending and borrowing money is absent from the transaction; but if the sale is not bona fide, and there is an intent under its form, by excess of price, to receive more than lawful interest, the transaction will be usurious. Heytle v. Logan, 1 A. K. Marsh (Ky.) 529; Quackenbos v. Sayer, 62 N. Y. 344; Barr v. Collier, 54 Ala. 39; Collier v. Barr, 64 Ala. 543; and Ford v. Hancock, 36 Ark. 248.…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Houghton v. BurdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  2. Quackenbos v. . SayerNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  3. Ford v. HancockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1880
  4. Jones v. PhillippeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
  5. Davis v. . GarrNew York Court of Appeals · 1851

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. American Physicians Insurance Co. v. HruskaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  2. Wilson v. WhitworthSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1939
  3. Tisdale v. ManessSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  4. Bell v. Itek Leasing Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1977
  5. Bell v. Itek Leasing Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1977

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API