Mason v. Cunningham
| Decision Date | 27 June 1933 |
| Parties | MASON et al. v. CUNNINGHAM. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Suit by E. Cunningham against Minnie Mason and husband. From a decree in favor of complainant, defendants appeal.
Affirmed. Appeal from Circuit Court, Hillsborough County L. L. Parks, judge.
E. L Bryan, of Tampa, for appellants.
John J Twomey, of Tampa, for appellee.
This was a mortgage foreclosure case in which the defense of usury interposed by the mortgagors in their answer was not sustained by the final decree of the chancellor, who awarded a foreclosure of the mortgage as prayed in the bill of complaint.
It appears from the evidence disclosed by the transcript that there is substantial basis therein for the chancellor's evident finding that the mortgagors first applied to a loan broker to procure them a loan of money to be secured by mortgage on real estate; that for such service they agreed to pay, and did pay, to the broker, a fixed commission for his services rendered in procuring the loan; that in the negotiations had in this particular the broker applied to was acting as agent for the borrower with respect to obtaining the loan, although he acted in part for the lender in completing the transaction which first originated with the borrower's application to the broker; that the transaction was a bona fide one involving only the payment of a bona fide broker's commission, and was not a mere subterfuge resorted to by the lender as a means of defeating the usury law by a circuitous method of indirection in procuring for the lender additional and unlawful compensation in the form of a commission, for his putting out of his money.
Where a transaction involves payment of a consideration for use of money, and the consideration contemplated to be paid and received by the party advancing the money is beyond the maximum amount authorized by the statute fixing a legal rate of interest, and declaring it to be usury to charge in excess of the rate of interest permitted, the transaction itself will be regarded as infected with usury, and subject to the penalties the law provides therefor, regardless of the form device, or cloak by which it is accomplished (Comp. Gen. Laws 1927, § 6936 et seq.). But, if the transaction is one by which a person needing money applies to a broker to render him services in procuring for him a loan, in consideration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richter Jewelry Co. Inc. v. Schweinert
... ... 680, 133 So. 846, 145 ... I do ... not think Wicker v. Trust Co., 109 Fla. 411, 147 ... [125 Fla. 207] So. 586, or Mason v. Cunningham, 111 ... Fla. 200, 149 So. 331, are in conflict with what has been ... above said. On the other hand, a recent Florida case quite ... ...
-
Brumick v. Morris
... ... interest prohibited by law and cites sections 6936, 6937, ... C.G.L., as authority for the unlawful charge, with Mason ... v. Cunningham, 111 Fla. 200, 149 So. 331; Hopkins v ... Otto, 118 Fla. 865, 160 So. 203. Opposing counsel cites ... Wilson v. Conner, 106 ... ...
-
Shaffran v. Holness
...services in negotiating or procuring the loan,' citing authorities including Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 So. 512; Mason v. Cunningham, 111 Fla. 200, 149 So. 331; and again, at page 713, 'even though an agent may act for the lender in other matters, or in some respect in connection wit......
-
Cutri Enterprises, Inc. v. Pan Am. Bank of Miami
...services in negotiating or procuring the loan,' citing authorities including Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 So. 512; Mason v. Cunningham, 111 Fla. 200, 149 So. 331; and again, at page 713, 'even though an agent may act for the lender in other matters, or in some respect in connection wit......