Tillar v. Cleveland
| Decision Date | 25 September 1886 |
| Citation | 1 S.W. 516 |
| Parties | TILLAR <I>v.</I> CLEVELAND. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jefferson circuit court. In chancery.
McCain & Crawford, for appellant. N. T. White, for appellee.
It appears, from the pleadings and proofs in this cause, that Cleveland, a clerk in a store of which Tillar was one of the proprietors, had made a parol bargain with the owner for the purchase of a lot in Pine Bluff, upon which stood an unfinished dwelling-house. The price of the lot was $150, and it was estimated that $120 would be required to complete the house, and Cleveland applied to Tillar to borrow these several sums, offering security and the payment of the highest rate of legal interest. Tillar replied that his money was worth more than 10 per cent per annum, but proposed to advance the necessary sum provided the legal title was conveyed directly to himself, and Cleveland would agree to pay rent for 12 months at the rate of $30 a month, after which he would reconvey to Cleveland or his wife. These terms Cleveland was forced, by his necessities, to accept. He drew the money from the bookkeeper of the establishment, paid the purchase price, and expended the remainder in the improvement of the property. The lot was conveyed to Tillar, the seller not examining the deed, but supposing all the time that Cleveland was the grantee named therein. Promissory notes were made by Cleveland and wife for the monthly installments of so-called rent, and Tillar agreed and bound himself in writing to make a deed to Mrs. Cleveland when the last of the notes should be paid. The Clevelands went into possession, but the wife soon afterwards died intestate, leaving an infant daughter as her sole heir. Cleveland then surrendered the bond for title, which his wife had held, to Tillar, received a new bond to himself, as obligee, and executed a deed of trust upon the lot to secure the payment of the outstanding notes, and also of another debt which he had incurred to Tillar. This lastmentioned debt had been discharged before the commencement of the present suit, and partial payments had been made on the original indebtedness.
Tillar now filed his bill to foreclose this deed of trust, but afterwards amended his bill, setting out the entire transactions between the parties, and asking for a decree for the balance due on the notes. Cleveland pleaded usury, alleging that he, and not Tillar, was the purchaser from the former owner that he had borrowed money from Tillar, and that the conveyance to Tillar was contrived merely as security for the loan and the usurious interest. He made his answer a cross-bill, offered to pay the balance of principal due on the notes, with lawful interest, and demanded a reconveyance. Mrs. Cleveland's infant child was made a party to the bill, and her guardian ad litem adopted the answer and cross-bill of her father and co-defendant. Tillar replied to the cross-bill, combating the theory of a loan and security, and contending that the transaction was a purchase in good faith by himself, and a resale to Mrs. Cleveland at an advance.
The court found that the contract upon which the plaintiff sued was tainted with usury, and it therefore dismissed his bill. But upon the cross-bill it proceeded to decree that Cleveland pay into court the principal sum, with interest at the sum of 6 per cent. per annum, that was admitted to be due; that this be paid over to Tillar, and thereupon the quitclaim executed by Tillar to Cleveland, and tendered with the bill, be delivered.
The most material inquiry is a question of fact,—were the alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Haden v. Eaves
...the errors and reversed the erroneous judgments or decrees on their own motion. We will review a few of them. In Tillar v. Cleveland, 47 Ark 287, 288, 1 S.W. 516, 518, Mrs. Tillar was the equitable owner of a lot and on her death her son was her only heir; the father of the son entered into......
-
Wood v. Essary
... ... We are ... of opinion that the latter is the ease. A leading authority ... in point is Tillar v. Cleveland, 47 Ark. 287, 1 S.W ... 516. In that case Cleveland had made a parol bargain with the ... owner for the purchase of a lot upon which ... ...
-
O'Brien v. Atlas Finance Co.
...evade the usury laws. In Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp., 220 Ark. 601, 249 S.W.2d 973, 977, the court quoted from Tillar v. Cleveland, 47 Ark. 287, 1 S.W. 516, as follows: "Yet it is apparent that if giving this form to the contract will afford a cover which conceals it from judici......
-
Scott v. Potts
...parties seeking the aid of equity must do equity, and return the consideration received. Ruddell v. Ambler, 18 Ark. 369; Tillar v. Cleveland, 47 Ark. 287, 1 S.W. 516; Anthony v. Lawson, 34 Ark. 628; Grider v. Driver, 46 Ark. 50. But it was only in equity, and not at law, that such a conditi......