Citizens' Bank v. Murphy
Decision Date | 13 May 1907 |
Citation | 102 S.W. 697 |
Parties | CITIZENS' BANK OF JUNCTION CITY v. MURPHY. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Union Chancery Court; E. O. Mahoney, Chancellor.
Proceedings by the Citizens' Bank of Junction City to establish a claim against the El Dorado Lumber & Planing Mill Company, contested by Guy Murphy, receiver of the latter. From a decree disallowing the claim, the bank appeals. Reversed and remanded.
On the 4th of June, 1904, Guy Murphy was appointed receiver of the El Dorado Lumber & Planing Mill Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Arkansas. The issue in this case arose out of a recommendation by the receiver in his report to the court that the claim of the Citizens' Bank, appellant, which had been presented to him for allowance and payment, and which he had disallowed, be subjected to judicial examination, and that the bank be directed to appear on a certain day of the chancery court and present evidence to support its claim. The chancery court approved and adopted this part of the receiver's report, and ordered appellant to appear and show cause why the action of the receiver rejecting its claim on account of usury should not be approved. Accordingly the appellant bank responded, denying that the amount presented by it was tainted with usury, and denying that any greater rate of interest was charged than 10 per cent., and alleging that J. H. Walsh, the manager of the El Dorado Lumber & Planing Mill Company, agreed to allow 1½ per cent. commissions on all invoices handled by the Citizens' Bank for said company; that this was a separate contract, and for separate services. They allege that the claim was filed in proper time, and ask that the claim be allowed together with their cost.
The testimony was thus directed to the issue of usury, and it was substantially as follows: I. F. Price, who was cashier of the appellant bank at the time the transactions resulting in the account presented took place, testified: And the witness continued: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Citizens' Bank v. Murphy
-
Leavitt v. Marathon Oil Co.
... ... Runyan, ... supra, and which was necessary to a plea of ... usury. Citizens' Bank v. Murphy, 83 ... Ark. 31, 102 S.W. 697; Bauer v. Wade, 170 ... Ark. 1020, 282 S.W. 359 ... ...
-
Jones v. Phillippe
...105 Id. 653. The written contract is legal on its face and a parol contract to take usury must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. 83 Ark. 31; 105 Id. 2. The evidence does not show usury. 62 Ark. 99. Usury must be proven; it is never implied. 91 Id. 458; 87 Id. 534. There must be an ......
-
Hogan v. Thompson
... ... conclusion can be reasonably reached. Citizens' ... Bank v. Murphy, 83 Ark. 31, 102 S.W. 697; ... Bauer v. Wade, 170 Ark. 1020, 282 S.W. 359; ... ...