Blaisdell v. Steinfeld
Decision Date | 02 January 1914 |
Docket Number | Civil 1325 |
Citation | 137 P. 555,15 Ariz. 155 |
Parties | H. W. BLAISDELL, Appellant, v. ALBERT STEINFELD, HAROLD STEINFELD and F. R. PAULI, Appellees |
Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [Copyrighted Material Omitted]
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. W. F. Cooper, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
STATEMENT OF FACTS BY THE COURT.
Action by appellant to have certain contracts canceled for being usurious and to have returned to him certain securities and for moneyed judgment for interest paid under such usurious contracts. The case was tried to the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered in favor of appellees. The facts shown and admitted by the pleadings are substantially as follows:
That the plaintiff was the owner, and for some time had been such owner, of practically all the stock and bonds of the Yuma Electric and Water Company and Yuma Gas Company, of Yuma, Arizona; that for a number of years preceding July 2, 1910, plaintiff and defendant Albert Steinfeld had been intimate personal friends and had many business transactions with each other; that plaintiff had been a borrower of large sums of money from said defendant, who was a very successful business man of large financial interests; and that plaintiff reposed confidence in his business judgment and frequently sought his advice, which was freely and voluntarily given.
On July 2, 1910, the plaintiff was indebted to the Merchants' National Bank of Los Angeles, California, in the sum of $40,000, secured by $100,000 of the bonds of the Yuma Electric and Water Company, and the bank was demanding and insisting that plaintiff pay his indebtedness to it. On said date the plaintiff also owed defendant Albert Steinfeld the sum of $25,000, evidenced by various promissory notes to secure which plaintiff had deposited with said defendant the following securities: $27,000 par value bonds of the Yuma Gas Company; also a note of Blaisdell Filtration Company for the sum of $21,000; also debenture receipt No. 66 of Imperial Water Company No. 4 for $2,680; also $20,000 par value of the capital stock of the California Development Company; also 6,300 shares King of Arizona Mining Company; and all plaintiff's equity in the $100,000 bonds of the Yuma Electric and Water Company held by the Merchants' National Bank as security for said $40,000 indebtedness to it. Defendant Albert Steinfeld on said date was likewise demanding of plaintiff that he take up and pay off his demands. On said date the plants of the Yuma Electric and Water Company and the Yuma Gas Company were inadequate to meet the demands upon them and were greatly in need of enlargement, which was then under consideration.
A few days prior to July 2, 1910, plaintiff made arrangements with the Merchants' National Bank whereby the latter agreed to accept a payment of $20,000 on account and give an extension of time on balance. For a considerable period of time prior to July 2, 1910, defendant Albert Steinfeld had been advising plaintiff to sell his various properties and had asked plaintiff to pay off his indebtedness to him. That on said date said defendant Steinfeld, possessing full knowledge of plaintiff's financial embarrassments, agreed to pay to the Merchants' National Bank $20,000 on account and to take plaintiff's note therefor, due in six months, bearing interest at ten per cent per annum, payable monthly, upon the terms and considerations as expressed in the following agreement:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Desert Gold Mining Company
...See Hibernian Banking Association v. Davis, 295 Ill. 537, 129 N.E. 540 (1921). The district court relies upon Blaisdell v. Steinfeld, 15 Ariz. 155, 137 P. 555 (1941), as holding that equity will cancel deeds and encumbrances on real property if tainted with usury or given for a usurious con......
-
In re Maryvale Community Hospital, Inc.
...and (5) there must be an exaction for the use of the loan of something in excess of what is allowed by law. Blaisdell v. Steinfeld, 15 Ariz. 155, 137 P. 555 (1914); Seargeant v. Smith, 63 Ariz. 466, 163 P.2d 680 (1945); Small v. Ellis, 90 Ariz. 194, 367 P.2d 234 (1961); Modern Pioneers Ins.......
-
Britz v. Kinsvater
...directly or indirectly, any greater sum or value, shall forfeit all interest.' A judicial definition was declared in Blaisdell v. Steinfeld, 15 Ariz. 155, 137 P. 555, and reaffirmed in Seargent v. Smith, 63 Ariz. 466, 163 P.2d 680. Therein it was 'In deciding whether any given transaction i......
-
LaBarr v. Tombstone Territorial Mint, 2
...to which appellant claims he is entitled. Affirmed. HATHAWAY, J., and HENRY S. STEVENS, Retired Judge, concur. 1 See Blaisdell v. Steinfeld, 15 Ariz. 155, 137 P. 555 (1914) for the Arizona law and Teichner v. Klassman, 240 Cal.App.2d 514, 49 Cal.Rptr. 742 (1966) for the California ...