Testera v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 10 January 1914 |
| Citation | 77 Wash. 377,137 P. 998 |
| Parties | TESTERA et ux. v. RICHARDSON et al. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 2. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; Everett Smith Judge.
B Richardson and another were proceeding to foreclose a chattel mortgage by notice and sale, and the mortgagors, James Testera and wife, transferred the proceedings to the superior court. From a judgment for the mortgagees, the mortgagors appeal. Affirmed.
Herbert E. Snook, of Seattle, for appellants.
W. W Felger, of Seattle, for respondents.
The respondent B. Richardson was proceeding by notice and sale to foreclose a chattel mortgage to satisfy a note executed by the appellants. The appellants thereupon transferred the proceedings to the superior court for the purpose of contesting the amount claimed to be due upon the note on the ground of usury. The trial court concluded that the note was note was not usurious and entered a decree of foreclosure. This appeal is prosecuted from that decree.
The appellants maintain that the note was usurious. This is the only question presented.
It appears that the appellants in October, 1910, borrowed the sum of $65 from the respondent B. Richardson. The respondent was acting through her agent, J. W. Richardson. In applying for the loan, the appellants offered as security a chattel mortgage upon a piano. Before accepting the security, J. W Richardson desired to see the piano and to make an examination and appraisement thereof, and also desired that the county records should be examined as to the title to the piano. It was also necessary to prepare a mortgage and have the same acknowledged. It was also necessary to obtain a release from a prior mortgage upon the piano. J. W Richardson agreed to perform these services for $5, which the appellants agreed to and did pay. The note for $65, for which the security was given, bore interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per annum.
It is argued by the appellants that, because this $5 was paid to J W. Richardson, the note was thereby made usurious under the statute . The appellants rely upon the case of Ridgway v. Davenport, 37 Wash. 134, 79 P. 606. In that case the statute is quoted in full. We there held that, where a broker loans money of the principal and deducts a sum by way of commissions in excess of the legal interest, the note is thereby made usurious under the statute. But in this case there was no deduction for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bank v. Heyward
...Ga. 113, 82 S. E. 442; Silverman v. Katz (Sup.) 120 N. Y. 5. 790; Brown v. Jones, 89 Misc. Rep. 538, 152 N. Y. S. 571; Testera v. Richardson, 77 Wash. 377, 137 P. 998. See, also, the vast array of citations in note to 19 L. R, A. (N. S.) 391, sustaining the proposition. "Money paid to a mor......
-
Citizens' Bank v. Heyward
...without knowledge of the lender and from which the lender received no benefit, does not make the contract usurious." In Testera v. Richardson, 77 Wash. 377, 137 P. 998, court says: "Payment to the agent of a chattel mortgagee for his services in preparing the note and mortgage and releasing......
-
Hobart v. Michaud
...v. Heidt, 107 Iowa, 297, 77 N. W. 1050, 43 L. R. A. 689, 70 Am. St. Rep. 197; Fisher v. Adamson, 47 Utah, 3, 151 P. 351; Testera v. Richardson, 77 Wash. 377, 137 P. 998; Liskey v. Snyder, 56 W. Va. 610, 49 S. E. 515. For additional authorities see annotation, First National Bank v. Phares, ......
-
Aetna Finance Co. v. Darwin
...actually provided by the lender, reasonably worth the price charged, and for which the borrower agreed to pay. See Testera v. Richardson, 77 Wash. 377, 379, 137 P. 998 (1914); Sparkman & McLean Income Fund v. Wald, supra. Under RCW 19.52.020, a set-up charge is exempt from characterization ......