Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. Clift, 5-155
| Decision Date | 22 June 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-155,5-155 |
| Citation | 222 Ark. 313,259 S.W.2d 517 |
| Parties | MURDOCK ACCEPTANCE CORP. et al. v. CLIFT. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Lowell W. Taylor, Memphis, Tenn., Owens, Ehrman & McHaney, Little Rock, for appellants.
H. B. Stubblefield, Little Rock, for appellee.
On May 13, 1952 appellee and her husband, Henry Clift, went to the Scallion Motor Co. and completed arrangements to purchase a 1949 Model Chevrolet Automobile which had been advertised for sale for $1,295. In substance the deal was for Henry Clift to trade in a 1947 Willys Station Wagon and pay $57 per month for 24 months, which payments were inclusive of interest, insurance, and a small amount designated as 'Dealer's Reserve'. After all papers had been prepared it was learned that Henry Clift was not 21 years old, and so it was agreed to prepare new papers in the name of appellee. This was done and all papers were signed by appellee as of May 14, 1952.
There is some conflict in the testimony regarding certain details of the transaction but appellee admits she signed the conditional sale contract presently described. The said contract, No. 27433 and dated May 14, 1952, described a 1949 Model Chevrolet Convertible Coupe. In bold type appears the following:
For a Total Time Price of $1,882.00
Payable On Or Before Delivery $ 514.00
Leaving a Deferred Balance $1,368.00
Payable at office of Murdock Acceptance Corporation to be hereafter $ 57.00
deisgnated in installments of 24
The last line above appellee's signature reads: 'Executed in duplicate, one copy of which was delivered to and retained by purchaser, this 14 day of May 1952'. On the reverse side of the above contract appears an assignment by the Scallion Motor Co. to the Murdock Acceptance Corporation.
On July 22, 1952 suit was filed by appellee to cancel the above sale contract for usury. The Chancellor found in favor of appellee and appellants have appealed.
A 'Customer's Statement' introduced in evidence shows that the balance of $1,368 due on the contract was arrived at as follows:
Delivered price of car $1,494.00
Down payment $ 514.00
Unpaid balance $ 980.00
The price differential $ 388.00
Total balance $1,368.00
There are different explanations of how the items $1,494 and $514 were arrived at, but it is unnecessary to discuss them in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sloan v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
...Duncan, 222 Ark. 160, 258 S.W.2d 560; Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Crossley, 222 Ark. 200, 258 S.W.2d 562; Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. Clift, 222 Ark. 313, 259 S.W.2d 517; Pacific Finance Co. v. Tinsley, 222 Ark. 723, 262 S.W.2d 282; Hoover v. Murdock Acceptance Corp., 223 Ark. 181, 2......
-
Rebsamen Motors, Inc. v. Morris
...222 Ark. 127, 258 S.W.2d 551; Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Crossley, 222 Ark. 200, 258 S.W.2d 562; Murdock Acceptance Corp. v. Clift, 222 Ark. 313, 259 S.W.2d 517; and Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Hall, 225 Ark. 78, 279 S.W.2d 281. The case at bar cannot be distinguished from th......
- Green v. State, 4698