Farmers' & Mechanics' Savings Co. v. Bazore

Decision Date09 December 1899
Citation54 S.W. 339,67 Ark. 252
PartiesFARMERS' & MECHANICS' SAVINGS COMPANY v. BAZORE
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Boone Circuit Court in Chancery, BRICE B. HUDGINS Judge.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The appellees executed to the appellants their promissory note which reads as follows:

"Springfield Mo., Sept. 20th, 1894.

"Sixty months after date, I promise to pay The Farmers' & Mechanics' Saving Company, of Springfield, Mo., $ 2,500 for value received, with interest from date at the rate of six per cent. per annum, payable in monthly installments, on the fourth Saturday of each month; and I promise to pay said company sixty monthly dues of $ 50 every month, as stockholder in said company, upon fifty shares of stock which I agree to carry until the loan is fully paid, with all the penalties of said stock, according to the by-laws and prospectus of said company. I further agree to pay said company the sum of $ 25 every month (for) sixty months, being the premium for this loan. [Signed] "T. E. WILSON, MARY E. WILSON,

"A. D. BAZORE, MARY A. BAZORE."

At the same time they executed to C. E. Boyden, as trustee, their deed of trust upon lands in Boone county, Arkansas, to secure the payment of said note.

The appellees brought the bill in equity to cancel said deed, alleging that said note and deed were usurious and void, stating that the said contract was executed in Boone county, Arkansas; that they had paid on the principal sum of $ 2,500, six hundred dollars as dues on stock in said company, and $ 388.75, interest and premium, and that the sum of $ 1,900 is now due and owing on said $ 2,500 principal. They charge that the company corruptly charged and demanded and exacted more than ten per cent. per annum, and that said deed of trust was a cloud upon their title to the lands conveyed, and prayed that the deed of trust and note be canceled, and that they have judgment for costs.

The defendants denied that the contract was usurious, and denied all allegations and charges of the complaint, and said that said contract was not executed in Boone county, Arkansas, but that, on the contrary, it was executed in the State of Missouri. They then, for further defense, filed a cross-bill, in which they state:

"Before plaintiffs could borrow from defendant corporation the said plaintiffs, T. E. Wilson and A. D. Bazore, were compelled to become, and did become, stockholders in defendant's company. And defendants say that said plaintiffs, on the first day of September, 1894, subscribed for fifty shares of stock of said company, with a view of borrowing from said company, and as a part of said transaction of said loan. Defendants say that twenty-five shares of stock were taken, upon which to borrow the sum of $ 2,500, as required by the by-laws of said company, and the other twenty-five shares were taken by said defendants as investment stock. Defendants say that, by the terms of said subscription and by-laws of said company, the plaintiffs agreed and promised to pay, and to become obligated to pay, as monthly dues on said stock, on the 4th Saturday of every month, for a period of sixty months, the sum of $ 50, being $ 1.00 per month for each share. Defendants further say that, having so subscribed for said stock, the said plaintiffs filed with the board of directors of said corporation, at Springfield, Mo., their written application for the loan of $ 2,500, payable sixty months after date. That said application for a loan was acted upon, approved and accepted by the said defendant company at Springfield, Mo., by and through a vote of its board of directors. That thereupon the said plaintiffs delivered to the defendant corporation at Springfield, Mo., the promissory note in said petition described, and delivered to defendant corporation and C. E. Boyden, at Springfield, Mo., the deed of trust in said petition described, and said note and said deed of trust were by said corporation and trustee accepted and received at Springfield, Mo. And defendants say that the said sum of $ 2,500 was by said corporation paid to said plaintiffs at Springfield, Mo., and the same was by them there and then accepted and received.

"Further answering, the defendant says that, by the terms of said contract, note and deed of trust, the said principal sum was due and payable sixty months after date, and the said plaintiffs had obligated themselves to pay $ 50 each month upon said stock, and had agreed to pay interest on said sum at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, payable monthly; that is to say, promised and agreed to pay as interest the sum of $ 12.50 per month for sixty consecutive months, and also promised and agreed to pay defendant the sum of $ 25 per month as a premium for said loan for a period of sixty consecutive months. Defendants say that no part of said principal sum was due and payable, except at the option of the plaintiff, until the expiration of the sixty months, when at said period the value of said shares of stock are applied as a lump payment upon said debt, and the money so paid by the plaintiff as dues, interest and premium were used by defendant corporation, and used to enhance the value of the plaintiff's stock. Defendant further says that for the months of September, October, November and December, in 1894, the months of January, February, March and April, in 1895, plaintiffs paid as dues on said fifty shares of stock the sum of $ 50 each month, and during the same period paid the sum of $ 100 as premium on said loan, and on July 10th, 1895, executed and delivered their certain notes for the payment of $ 100 dues, $ 25 interest, $ 50 premium and $ 5 fines, or a total of $ 180. Defendants say that on said July 10th, plaintiffs withdrew 25 shares of their stock from their company, and the withdrawal value of said shares at said time was applied, by the direction of plaintiffs, as follows: (1) The payment of said note for $ 180, being the dues, interest and premium for the months of May and June, 1895, and the $ 5 fines, aforesaid. (2) To the payment of the dues for the month of July, 1895, on the said remaining twenty-five shares, and six other shares not included in said loan; total, $ 31. (3) To the payment of interest for the month of July on said loan of $ 2,500, and to an additional loan of $ 600, $ 15.51, and the balance of said withdrawal, together with cash payment of $ 11, was applied to the payment of the July premium on the said $ 2,500 loan and on the said $ 600 loan. Defendants further say that for the months of August, September, October, November, and December, 1895 and January, 1896, said plaintiffs paid monthly dues on said stock of $ 25 each, and no more. During the same period said plaintiffs paid the monthly sums of $ 12.50, as interest on said loan, and no more, and during the same period plaintiffs paid the sum of $ 25 per month premium on said note, and no more,--making a total payment on dues, interest and premium on said twenty-five shares of stock, and the said loan of $ 2,500, the sum of $ 912.50. That, at the time of the institution of this suit, there was payable, but not then due, on said note and said deed of trust the sum of $ 2,500, and there was due and payable and unpaid the sum of $ 50 for dues on said stock for the months of February and March, 1896, and there was at the said time due and payable and unpaid on interest the sum of $ 25 for said two months, and there was due and payable and unpaid at said time the sum of $ 50 as premium for said two months, making a total of $ 125, exclusive of fines. And the defendants say that, exclusive of fines, there is now due the defendant corporation by plaintiff the following sums: $ 2,500 principal debt, payable but not due and the sum of $ 150 as dues on the said twenty-five shares of stock, $ 150 as premiums on said loan, and $ 75 as interest on said loan. Defendants say that, among other provisions of said deed of trust, it is provided that if default is made in the payment of said note, or any part of it, or any of the interest thereon, when due, or any of the dues as stockholders, when due according to the by-laws of the said party of the third part, then this shall remain in force, and the whole of said indebtedness become due and payable according to the by-laws of the party of the third part. Defendants say that plaintiffs have violated conditions of said deed of trust, and plaintiffs are now in default for 6 months past. Defendants state that should the present value of said shares of stock be applied on said principal debt, there would still be due and payable to the defendant corporation the sum of $ 2,400. Defendants further state that, after the execution of said note and deed of trust, the defendant T. E. Wilson purchased the interest of said Bazore in said property, and, as the sole consideration of said conveyance, assumed and agreed to pay said $ 2,500 as due defendant corporation, and promised and agreed to pay dues, interest and premium on said stock and loan. Therefore, filing this as an answer as well as cross-bill, defendants pray judgment for $ 2,875, with interest, and that the equity of redemption be foreclosed, and said property be sold to pay said debt, interest and premium, with privilege accorded said defendant Wilson before sale to repay said debt by applying the value of his stock thereon, and paying the balance in cash, and for such further relief as this court may see meet and proper, and for this your defendant will ever pray."

To this cross-bill the plaintiffs filed an answer, which, amongst other things, denied the allegations of the cross-bill as to (1) the application for the loan and the action of the board of directors thereon; and (2) the delivery of the note and deed of trust and the payment of the money...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • First National Bank v. Waddell
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1905
  • Crebbin v. Deloney
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 14, 1902
  • Whitlock v. Cohn
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1904
  • Sugg v. Smith
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • May 23, 1918
    ... ... R. A. 848, 131 Am. St. Rep. 20, 16 Ann. Cas. 690; Island City Savings Bnk. v. Sachtleben, 67 Tex. 420, 3 S. W. 733; People v. Railroad, 120 Ill ... Bank of Elkton, 104 Ry. 852, 48 S. W. 413; F. & M. Sav. Co. v. Bazore, 67 Ark. 252, 54 S. W. 341; 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 814, note; 56 L. R. A ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT