Jarvis v. Southern Grocery Co.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1896
• Citation: 38 S.W. 148
• Parties: JARVIS et al. v. SOUTHERN GROCERY CO.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 148

38 S.W. 148

JARVIS et al. v. SOUTHERN GROCERY CO.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 28, 1896.

Appeal from Jefferson chancery court; James F. Robinson, Chancellor.

Action by the Southern Grocery Company against F. A. Jarvis and another to foreclose chattel mortgages. From a decree for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Modified.

W. P. & A. B. Grace, N. T. White, and Rose, Hemingway & Rose, for appellants. Bridges & Wooldridge, Austin & Taylor, and Dan W. Jones & McCain, for appellee.

BUNN, C. J.

In the early part of 1890 appellee company organized as a corporation, and, doing business under the laws of this state, and domiciled in the city of Pine Bluff, began to furnish appellant, an extensive farmer in the vicinity, with supplies and money for the current year; and this continued until 1893, when the matter culminated in this suit. As is customary in such cases, at the beginning of the year a note, and sometimes more than one note, were given, covering the balance unpaid on the last year's transactions, and an amount estimated to cover all needed supplies and money for the current year; and these notes, in the present case, were signed by Mrs. S. A. Pitts, mother of appellant, along with him, but in fact as his surety, and they were also secured by mortgages on personal property given by appellant alone. In February, 1893, a more definite understanding as to the transaction of future business seems to have been had between all the parties. On the 24th of February, 1893, appellant gave his note for $1,150.36, as a balance on the year 1892, and also another note for $4,000, covering supplies to be furnished, the amount to be increased as deemed necessary by appellee; and deeds of trust were given on personal property by Jarvis to secure the same, both falling due on the 15th of November, 1893; and on the 15th of March, 1893, another deed of trust was given to secure a note of $1,204.72, dated March 5, 1892, due 1st of December, 1892, which was the amount of balance for the year 1891. All these notes were signed by Mrs. S. A. Pitts, as stated. On the 19th of December, 1893, this suit was instituted for judgment for the aggregate sum of $4,853.15 and $300 attorney's fee, and to foreclose the three mortgages of February and March, 1893, securing said $1,150.36 note, said $4,000 note, and said $1,204.72 note. Defendants answered, setting up usury upon various grounds and overcharge. Decree for the sum of $5,295.16, and for the foreclosure of the deeds of trust of February and March, 1893, and defendants all appealed.

The decree was founded upon the following finding of facts as to amount due and owing from the appellants to appellees: "That there is no usury in any of the notes sued upon; that the note for $1,204.72, executed on the 15th of March, 1892, should have been for the sum of $1,123.76, and that the sum of $80.96 was included in said note by clerical mistake; that said note should be credited with said sum of $80.96 as of March 5, 1892; that on November 30, 1893, said note was overpaid in the sum of $14.20, which should be credited on the note for $1,150.36, executed February 24, 1893, as of November 30, 1893; that there is now due by the said Jarvis and Pitts to the plaintiff, on the notes executed February 24, 1893, for $1,150.26, and the note for $4,000, including interest according to the tenor and effect thereof, the sum of $5,268.88." (Additional interest and intervening credits presumably make the real amount to be $5,295.16, as stated.) Again: "The court further finds that there was an express contract and agreement between the plaintiff and defendant Jarvis that a commission of $1.25 a bale for storage, handling, insurance, weighing, and selling should be paid to the plaintiff by the said defendant on all cotton received by the plaintiff as...