Brown v. Grundy
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Arkansas
In Equity. This is a bill to foreclose two deeds of trust in the nature of mortgages on real estate and some personalty, all lying and situated in this state. The defendants, the mortgagors, deny the validity of the mortgage and indebtedness, setting up the plea of usury.
Read the full summary
In Equity. This is a bill to foreclose two deeds of trust in the nature of mortgages on real estate and some personalty, all lying and situated in this state. The defendants, the mortgagors, deny the validity of the mortgage and indebtedness, setting up the plea of usury. They also filed a cross bill setting up the fact that’ the debt secured by the mortgage is usurious and void, and they ask that the mortgage be canceled as a cloud on their title, in conformity with the statutes of the state of Arkansas hereinafter set out. The facts, as they appear from the testimony, which is practically…
1Opinion of the CourtTrieber, District Judge
(after stating the facts). Usury being merely a statutory offense, federal courts in dealing with such a question must look to the laws of the state where the transaction took place, and follow the construction put upon such laws by the state courts. De Wolf v. Johnson, 10 Wheat. 367, 6 L. Ed. 343; Scudder v. Bank, 91 U. S. 406, 23 L. Ed. 245; Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 172 U. S. 351, 19 Sup. Ct. 179, 43 L. Ed. 474. It is claimed on behalf of the complainants that the plea of usury cannot be sustained, for two reasons: Eirst, that in order to constitute usury there must be a .concurrence of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Scudder v. Union National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- De Wolf v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Bank of the United States v. Waggener and OthersSupreme Court of the United States · 1835
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. KrumseigSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Garvin v. LintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.