HORNSBY v. RUSH

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

3 Div. 751.

Attorney(S)

Weil, Stakely Cater, of Montgomery, for appellant. The transaction disclosed was a mere device to evade the statute against usury, and plaintiff was not entitled to recover more than the principal. Lewis v. Hickman, 200 Ala. 674, 77 So. 46; 27 R.C.L. 211; Code 1923, § 8567. Ball Ball, of Montgomery, for appellee. The usury statute applies only to loans of money and not to collateral agreements. The transaction in this case was not usurious. Commercial Credit Co. v. Tarwater, 215 Ala. 123, 110 So. 39, 48 A.L.R. 1437; Jones v. Moore, 212 Ala. 248, 102 So. 200; Hogan v. Thompson, 186 Ark. 497, 54 S.W.(2d) 303.

Judges

SAMFORD, Justice.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Please sign up to generate summary.

HORNSBY v. RUSH.

SAMFORD, Justice.

The action was on a promissory note. The plea was usury, in short by consent. The cause was submitted to the trial judge, sitting without a jury, on an agreed statement of facts.

Under the evidence the consideration for the note sued on was $92.50 and a coupon issued by "Merchants Coupon Service Company" of the face value of $10 and an agreed value of $7.50. The defendant executed the note for $100 and by agreement accepted as the consideration $92.50 in cash and the coupon for $10 at a discount of $2.50. This coupon defendant afterwards used in making payment for a purchase of goods, at its face value. The note called for 8 per cent. interest per annum. This is not usury and the trial court so correctly held. 66 Corpus Juris 172 (§ 61); Hogan v. Thompson, 186 Ark. 497, 54 S.W.(2d) 303.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

HORNSBY v. RUSH.

Comments