Universal CIT Credit Corp. v. Hudgens
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
George Rose Smith, J.,
on rehearing. This was originally an action in replevin. The appellant’s complaint alleged the car to be worth $1,000. At the inception of the case the appellant obtained possession of the vehicle by executing a delivery bond.
The ease was later transferred to equity. In the final decree the chancellor canceled the contract for fraud and for usury and gave the appellees a judgment for $1,060, representing the value of the car and $60 damages for the wrongful repossession. We affirmed the decree upon the ground of fraud alone, without reaching the question of usury. 234…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Sloan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
- Briggs v. SteeleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
- Ford v. HancockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1880
- Kilgo v. Continental Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hayes v. First National Bank of MemphisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
- Winkle v. Grand National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
- Riley v. Red River Marine, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Worthen Bank & Trust Co. v. MosserSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1988
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.