Thompson v. Ingram

• Decision Date: 15 June 1889
• Citation: 11 S.W. 881
• Parties: THOMPSON <I>v.</I> INGRAM <I>et al.</I>
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

11 S.W. 881

THOMPSON

v. INGRAM et al.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 15, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, Faulkner county; J. W. MARTIN, Judge.

S. W. Williams, for appellant. J. H. Harrod, for appellees.

HEMINGWAY, J.

This is an action brought by appellant on a promissory note. Appellees interposed a plea of usury. The court found that the defendants executed the note sued on, payable to the order of Walton, as agent, for $300, with interest from date until paid at 10 per cent.; that the principal maker of the note received but $285; that W. J. Thompson, who advanced the money to Walton, only furnished him that amount; that W. J. Thompson was the owner of the note, and continued its owner until just before the suit was brought, a period of near three years, when Walton, as agent, by his direction, indorsed it to plaintiff; that the plaintiff knew nothing of the dealings between Walton and the defendants; that there was received for the loan more than lawful interest.

It is assigned for error that the court erred in finding the facts, and also that the court erred in holding, upon the facts, that the commissions paid by Ingram to W. J. Thompson and Walton constituted usury. The finding complained of is that the loan was made by W. J. Thompson, when the contention is that it was made by plaintiff. Walton testifies that $15 of the $300 was paid W. J. Thompson as commissions for making the loan, which Thompson admits. He (W. J. Thompson) testifies, that plaintiff, who is his brother, lives in Missouri; that money there commands only 6 to 8 per cent. interest; that he induced plaintiff to place money in his hands for loan, upon a promise that he would realize for him upon it 10 per cent., and look to the borrowers for his commissions. Such being the evidence for plaintiff, he could not be prejudiced by the findings of the court. If W. J. Thompson made the loan, the note is usurious and void because, in addition to the highest lawful interest, he reserved $15 in advance. If plaintiff made the loan through W. J. Thompson, as his agent, the same result follows, because his agent received a bonus in addition to the highest lawful rate of interest, in accordance with the understanding with which the money was placed for loan. No other judgment could have been rendered under the law and facts. It is affirmed.