Legal Opinion

Cheairs v. McDermott Motor Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 23, 1928PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, C. J.,

(after stating the facts). The main reliance of the defendants for a reversal of the judgment is that the transaction was, in effect, a device to cover a loan and to exact a greater rate of interest than that allowed by law. We do not agree with counsel in this contention. The law is well settled in this State that usury can only attach to a loan of money or to the forbearance of a debt, and that, on a contract for the sale of property, the contracting parties may agree upon one price if cash be paid, and upon a large addition to the cash price, as may suit themselves, if credit…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ford v. HancockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1880
  2. Smith v. KaufmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920
  3. Standard Motors Finance Co. v. Mitchell Auto Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  4. Ellenbogen v. GriffeySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1892
  5. Blake Bros. v. Askew & BrummettSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
  2. Sloan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
  3. Crisco v. Murdock Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
  4. Bell v. Idaho Finance Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1953
  5. Harper v. FutrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1942

13 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