Legal Opinion

Heidelberg Southern Sales Company v. Tudor

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 13, 1958No. 5-1636PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sam Robinson, Associate Justice.

The issue is whether a contract for the sale of a printing press is usurious. On July 23,1956, appellant, Heidelberg Southern Sales Company, sold a printing press to appellee, James R. Tudor, under a title retaining contract. The purchaser made a part payment in cash and the balance was to be paid in monthly installments. Tudor refused to make the monthly payments, and Heidelberg filed this suit to replevy the machine. A jury was waived and the canse submitted to the court. From a finding by the court that the sales contract is usurious, the Heidelberg Company…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Crisco v. Murdock Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
  2. Jones v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
  3. Tillar v. ClevelandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
  4. Summers v. Carbondale Machine Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1915

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Carper v. Kanawha Banking & Trust Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1974
  2. American Physicians Insurance Co. v. HruskaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
  3. Bunn v. Weyerhaeuser Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  4. Huchingson v. Republic Finance CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
  5. Mowery v. HouseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962

6 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