Dickey v. Brown
| Citation | 9 N.W. 347,56 Iowa 426 |
| Parties | DICKEY ET AL. v. BROWN ET AL |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1881 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Appeal from Floyd Circuit Court.
ACTION to foreclose a mortgage. Defense usury. Judgment for the plaintiffs, and defendants appeal.
AFFIRMED.
Ellis & Ellis, for appellants.
Hand & Spriggs, for appellees.
The mortgage was executed in 1875, to secure four promissory notes for one thousand dollars each, with ten per cent interest from date. The defendant, Brown, applied to John Furguson, of Charles City, Iowa, to negotiate for him a loan of four thousand dollars and agreed to pay him for so doing a commission of seven and one-half per cent. Furguson forwarded Brown's proposition to Holland, Furguson & Co., of Rockford, Illinois, who, as agents of the plaintiffs, furnished the money and made the loans. They retained two hundred dollars as their commission, and forwarded thirty-eight hundred dollars to John Furguson, who set aside one hundred dollars for his services, and gave the defendant, Brown, thirty-seven hundred dollars.
The defendants claim at least one of the plaintiffs had knowledge Holland, Dickerson & Co. received the two hundred dollars aforesaid at the time the loan was made, and, therefore, that the plaintiffs through their said agents exacted and received more than ten per cent interest. We are constrained to say this proposition is not well taken.
John Furguson had the right to do as he pleased with the three hundred dollars Brown agreed to pay him. He could, if he saw proper, divide with Holland, Furguson & Co., and if he could not negotiate the loan otherwise, it possibly was his duty to Brown to do so. John Furguson was the agent of the defendant, Brown, and any contract made between them alone could not have the effect of tainting such contract with usury so far as the plaintiffs are concerned. Smith v. Wolf, 55 Iowa 555, 8 N.W. 429.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Phillippe
...... The following cases are cited, and they fully support the text: Eslava v. Crampton, 61 Ala. 507; Dickey v. Brown, 56 Iowa, 426, 9 N. W. 347; Collamer v. Goodrich, 30 Vt. 628. The same author makes this further statement:. "In this class ......
-
Landis v. Saxton
...Smith v. Wolf, 55 Iowa 555; Eddy v. Badger, 8 Bliss C. Ct. 238; Palmer v. Call, 2 McCrary, 522; Boardman v. Taylor, 66 Geo. 638; Dickey v. Brown, 56 Iowa 426; Atchison Chase, 28 Minn. 211; Sniffin v. Koechling, 45 N.Y.S. 61; White v. Dwyer, 31 N. J. E. 40. Having paid the estate in full for......
-
Jones v. Phillippe
...... laws against usury." The following cases are cited, and. they fully support the text: Eslava v. Crampton, 61 Ala. 507; Dickey v. Brown, 56 Iowa 426, 9 N.W. 347; Collamer v. Goodrich, 30 Vt. 628. . . The. same author makes this further statement: "In ......
-
Pass v. N. E. Mortgage Security Co
...as the agent of the N. E. M. S. Co., still this would not necessarily make the loan usurious. Dickey v. Brown, 55 Am. Dec. 396, n. (s. c. 56 Iowa 426). for appellants would have the court to infer that the Corbin Co. was the agent for the N. E. M. S. Co., because the formet advanced the mon......