Davidson v. Davis
| Decision Date | 02 April 1910 |
| Citation | 59 Fla. 476,52 So. 139 |
| Parties | DAVIDSON et al. v. DAVIS. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Santa Rosa County; J. E. Wolfe, Judge.
Bill by J. W. Davis against W. M. Davidson and Ida Davidson. Decree for complainant, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Usury can only attach to a loan of money or to the forbearance of a debt. On a contract to secure the price or value of work and labor done, or to be done, or of property sold, the contracting parties may agree upon one price if cash be paid and upon as large an addition to the cash price as may suit themselves if credit be given; and it is wholly immaterial whether the enhanced price be ascertained by the simple addition of a lumping sum to the cash price, or by a percentage thereon. In neither case is the transaction usurious. It is neither a loan nor the forbearance of a debt but simply the contract price of work and labor done, or of property sold; and the difference between cash and credit in such cases, whether 6, 10, or 20 per cent., must be left exclusively to the contract of the parties, and no amount of difference, fairly agreed upon, can be considered illegal. The difference between the cash and the credit price on a sale of property may be put into the form of interest on a note given for the purchase price without violating the usury law, although the per cent. agreed is greater than the lawful rate of interest.
COUNSEL T. F. West, for appellants.
Daniel Campbell & Son, for appellee.
The appellee filed his bill for the foreclosure of a mortgage in the circuit court of Santa Rosa county; the mortgage being given to secure the payment of a note for $1,687.50, payable 12 months after date, to bear interest after maturity at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent. per annum. The defendants answered the bill, alleging that the said note was usurious in this That the amount really due by them to the original payee in said note was the sum of $1,500, and that the excess of $187.50 over said sum of $1,500 was added to said note as interest thereon from the date of said note for one year thence next ensuing, which they aver was at the rate of 12 1/2 per cent. per annum, and was usurious. Testimony was taken, and upon the testimony the court below rendered a decree for the principal sum of $1,687.50, without any interest after maturity of said note, and for attorney's fees for the foreclosure of the mortgage, and for costs. From this decree the defendants below have taken their appeal, and assign the said decree as error.
The evidence in the case shows that there was no loan of money by the mortgagee to the mortgagors, and that no indebtedness between them existed at the time of the giving of said note and mortgage, but that, the original mortgagee being the owner of a tract of land in Santa Rosa county that the mortgagor desired to purchase, the said vendor was willing to sell the same for cash at the sum of $1,500; but the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Capital Corp. v. Tel Service Co.
...laws do not apply to such a sale. Mid-State Homes, Inc. v. Staines, 161 So.2d 569 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1964); Davidson, et al. v. Davis, 59 Fla. 476, 52 So. 139, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 102 (1910). The critical issue is not whether the usury laws apply to the sale of personal property, but whether the ins......
-
Johnson v. Sears Roebuck & Co.
...Agency, Inc. v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 156 Colo. 237, 398 P.2d 965; Rushing v. Worsham, 102 Ga. 825, 30 S.E. 541; Davidson v. Davis, 59 Fla. 476, 52 So. 139; Atlas Securities Co. v. Copeland, 124 Kan. 393, 260 P. 659; Commercial Credit Equipment Corp. v. Larry Parrott of Gueydan, ......
-
Dennis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...260 P. 659 (1927); Standard Supply & Hardware Co. v. Christian, etc., 183 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.Civ.App. 1944); Davidson v. Davis, 59 Fla. 476, 52 So. 139, 28 L.R.A.,N.S., 102 (1910); Uni-Serve Corp. of Mass. v. Commissioner of Banks, 349 Mass. 283, 207 N.E.2d 906 In only two states has it been h......
-
Continental Mortg. Investors v. Sailboat Key, Inc.
...Fla.Stat. (1975). Florida has long recognized the general exception to usury laws of the time-price doctrine. See Davidson v. Davis, 59 Fla. 476, 52 So. 139 (1910). The usury law does not apply to the sale of bonds, or mortgages on those bonds, section 687.03(1), Florida Statutes (1975), or......