Puckett v. Fore
| Decision Date | 05 February 1900 |
| Citation | 27 So. 381,77 Miss. 391 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HENRY PUCKETT v. GEORGE W. FORE |
December 1899
FROM the circuit court of Madison county, HON. ROBERT POWELL Judge.
Fore the appellee, was the plaintiff in the court below; Puckett the appellant, was the defendant there. The action was replevin for property aggregating in value $ 612.95. On the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence a chattel mortgage or deed of trust, executed by defendant, conveying the property to the plaintiff, as trustee, to secure an indebtedness much greater than $ 612.25, evidenced by promissory note and the note itself. By way of defense it was shown that the indebtedness evidenced by the note was composed of items, and the note had been given therefor as well as by way of renewal of the several previous notes mentioned in the opinion of the supreme court; that the first note for $ 937.69 was given for goods, wares and merchandise sold by the payee, a merchant to defendant, and that at the time of the sales the merchant had not paid the privilege tax required of him by law, and that consequently this note was void, and being illegal, the note into which it was carried, by way of renewal, was to that extent at least void; that the four notes executed February 18, 1892, were usurious, and they too were carried by way of renewal into the note offered in evidence by the plaintiff, and it was further claimed by defendant that the payments made by him, which were shown in evidence, if applied, not to the illegal note, and not to interest on the usurious notes, were sufficient to satisfy the debt. The case was tried in the circuit court before the judge, the parties waiving a jury, who decided for plaintiff, the court entering a judgment in plaintiff's favor, reciting', "and it appearing that the plaintiff has given bond for the property, and now has the same in his possession, it is considered that the plaintiff retain the property levied upon." From this judgment the defendant, Puckett, appealed to the supreme court.
Reversed.
H. B. Greaves, for appellant.
The $ 937.69 note, which was renewed by the execution of the note offered in evidence by the plaintiff, was illegal and void. It was given for a debt contracted in the course of a mercantile business liable to a privilege tax. Code 1880 § 589. All renewals of such a note, even if submerged with valid obligations, are likewise utterly void. Bank v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Friendly Finance Co. of Biloxi, Inc., 41871
...defendant may, under his plea of not guilty, show that the chattel mortgage is void, as a defense to the replevin action. Puckett v. Fore, 77 Miss. 391, 27 So. 381; Associates Discount Corp. v. Ruddock et al., 224 Miss. 533, 81 So.2d 249. The defendant may introduce evidence to show an affi......
-
Sullivan v. Ammons
...not been paid, and the vice of such contract affects all subsequent changes in the mere form of the contract, as held in Puckett v. Fore, 77 Miss. 391, 27 So. 381. It may true in that case that the dealings extended through ten years or more, and that there was a continuous account through ......
-
Ables v. Curle, 40767
...the contract is illegal for that reason, of course a plaintiff in replevin has no right to possession of the property. Puckett v. Fore, 1899, 77 Miss. 391, 27 So. 381; Associates Discount Corp. v. Ruddock, 1955, 224 Miss. 533, 81 So.2d Hence the defendant's evidence properly made an issue o......
-
Doyle v. L. Herzog & Bros. Dry Goods Co.
...the mere claim of suit for the additional ten per cent. did not make the appellee guilty of violating the usury laws. The case of Puckett v. Fore, 77 Miss. 391, and other cases also settled this question, by holding that payments are applied by the law to the items of the account which are ......