Merchants' & Planters' Bank v. Caston
| Decision Date | 27 June 1910 |
| Docket Number | 14371 |
| Citation | 97 Miss. 309,52 So. 633 |
| Parties | MERCHANTS' & PLANTERS' BANK v. ELIAS G. CASTON |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
FROM the chancery court of Covington county, HON. THADDEUS A WOOD, Chancellor.
The bank, appellant, was complainant in the court below. Caston appellee, was defendant there. The suit was to foreclose a mortgage securing the note mentioned in the opinion of the court. From a decree in complainant's favor, but denying it a recovery of interest on the idea that the note was usurious, the complainant appealed to the supreme court. The facts touching the note are stated in the opinion of the court.
Reversed and remanded.
McWillie & Thompson, and M. U. Mounger, for appellant.
The note in question was one for $ 1,050 dated January 22, 1907 and due and payable on July 22d of the same year with interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum, from maturity. It was given in reality for a loan of $ 1,000 which was to bear interest at ten per centum from the date of the transaction, and the interest up to maturity ($ 50) was included in the face of the note. Exactly the same question arises on these facts that was decided by this court in a very recent case. Palm v. Fancher, 93 Miss. 785, 48 So. 818. If the borrower had performed his undertaking and paid the note at maturity, it would have been impossible for the lender to have collected more than the legal contractual rate of interest. Further following the line of reasoning employed in Palm v. Fancher, we would suggest that it would be wholly immaterial whether the interest until maturity were included in the note for the principal or made the subject of a separate note, whereby the transaction would be assimilated to the case of a bond having interest bearing coupons attached stipulating for interest at the highest contractual rate, which coupons if unpaid when they fell due would thereafter of course bear the interest for which the parties contracted.
In the court below the defendant relied on the case of Carter v Halloway, 28 So. 941, as establishing his contention that the note was usurious. This case is either distinguishable from or it is overruled by Palm v. Fancher.
McIntosh Brothers, for appellee.
Carter v. Holloway, 28 So. 941, decided by this court, is conclusive against appellant's contention. It has not been overruled, either by Palm v. Fancher, 93 Miss. 785 or by any other subsequent case. The court below...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Ham
... ... Palm v ... Fancher, 93 Miss. 785; Planters Bank v. Caston, 97 ... Miss. 309 ... Some ... jurisdictions ... 320; Cutler v ... Board, 56 Miss. 115; Merchants, etc., Bank v ... Caston, 97 Miss. 309, 52 So. 633; Palm v. Fancher, 93 ... ...
-
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Davis
... ... Snodgrass ... v. Bank, 4 How. 573; Smythe v. Allen, 67 Miss. 146, ... 6 So. 627 ... 179, 79 So. 100; Cutler v. Board, ... etc., 56 Miss. 115; Bank v. Caston, 97 Miss ... 309, 52 So. 633; Morgan v. Discount Co., 129 So. 589 ... Assuming that ... to be true, it relies on Planters' Bank v ... Snodgrass, 4 Howard 573, and Smythe v. Allen, ... 67 Miss ... Fancher, 93 Miss. 785, 48 So. 818, ... 33 L.R.A. (N.S.) 295; Merchants' & Planters' Bank ... v. Caston, 97 Miss. 309, 52 So. 633, and Culter v ... ...
-
Rogers v. Rivers
...were not paid annually, it should become principal and bear the same rate of interest, was not usurious, and Merchants & Planters Bank v. Caston, 52 So. 633, holding that a note with interest added in the face of note at ten per cent per annum from date until due, and providing for interest......