Jones v. Jones, 5-1281
| Decision Date | 13 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-1281,5-1281 |
| Citation | 301 S.W.2d 737,227 Ark. 836 |
| Parties | Denzil W. JONES, Appellant, v. Woodrow JONES, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Ted Goldman and Chas. C. Wine, Texarkana, for appellant.
Shaver, Tackett & Jones, Texarkana, for appellee.
This is a suit by the appellee to cancel an assertedly usurious contract by which he bought a car from the appellant, an automobile dealer. The appellant contends that he did not intend to charge excessive interest and merely made a mistake in the amount of the premium for insurance on the vehicle. The chancellor found the agreement to be void for usury and ordered its cancellation.
The net price for the car, after an allowance for the value of a mortgaged truck that was traded in by the buyer, was $957. By the contract the buyer was required to pay $1,200 in twenty-four equal monthly installments. It is conceded that the difference of $243 was intended to represent nothing except interest and insurance. The actual insurance premium was at the rate of $118 for the two years, which leaves an apparent interest charge amounting to more than ten per cent per annum. The appellant insists, however, that by mutual mistake the contract was prepared upon the erroneous assumption that the insurance premium would be $140, which would bring the amount attributable to interest within the legal limit.
The chancellor's rejection of this contention is not against the weight of the evidence. The appellant testified that before preparing the contract he telephoned an insurance agent and was told that the premium would be $140. He says that he passed this information on to the appellee. The latter denies that the amount of the premium was ever mentioned. He says that he signed the contract in blank upon the understanding that the seller would insert the correct charge for the insurance on the car. Upon either of these versions the mistake, if it actually occurred, would evidently be a mutual one.
The appellant's testimony is corroborated only by the fact that the correct premium would have been $140 if the purchaser had meant to use the car in his business as a plumber. There is at least some evidence to support the view that the vehicle was to be so used, and we are asked to find that the premium should in fact have been $140. This request is beside the point, for the question is whether the parties agreed to a contract affording the lender an excessive rate of interest. If the evidence requires an affirmative answer to that question, it is plain that the agreement cannot be purged of usury by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Winkle v. Grand Nat. Bank
...charges for premiums on insurance policies in addition to the 10% by the lender on the borrower was usurious. See also Jones v. Jones, 227 Ark. 836, 301 S.W.2d 737 (1957). [267 Ark. 139-R] For the above reasons I would not grant a rehearing in this case and would uphold the original opinion......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Phillips
...Ins. Co. v. McGibboney, 245 Ark. 1016, 436 S.W.2d 824; Reliable Life Insurance Co. v. Elby, 247 Ark. 514, 446 S.W.2d 215; Jones v. Jones, 227 Ark. 836, 301 S.W.2d 737; Rutherford v. Casey, 190 Ark. 79, 77 S.W.2d 58; United States Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Reddick, 199 Ark. 82, 133 S.W.2d 23. S......
-
Sloan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...on by merchants as authority for a charge of more than 10% per annum for extending credit in the sale of merchandise. In Jones v. Jones, Ark., 301 S.W.2d 737, we 'This is a suit by the appellee to cancel an assertedly usurious contract by which he bought a car from the appellant, an automob......
-
United-Bilt Homes, Inc. v. Teague
...the difference between the principal of the loan and the face amount of the contract represents interest on the debt. Jones v. Jones, 227 Ark. 836, 301 S.W.2d 737 (1957). We have consistently adhered to the rule laid down in the Jones case, which is an important but completely fair weapon i......