ark.]
Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.
601
Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corporation.
4-9723
249 S. W. 2d 973
Opinion delivered May 26, 1952.
Rehearing denied June 30, 1952.
- Usury—bona fide purchaser.—A note usurious in the hands of the payee is usurious in the hands of a subsequent purchaser, though he purchased in good faith, before maturity of the note and without notice of the usury.
- Usury.—The Constitution (Art. 19, § 13) makes a usurious note void, and it can gain no validity by circulation.
- Usury—bona fide holder.—The defense of bona fide holder, for value, without notice is without merit against a plea of usury.
- Sales—credit price.—A sale of a motor truck by M to appellant for $1,750 on which was paid $600 leaving a balance of $1,150 to which enough was added for insurance, interest and service charges to make the total price $2,039.13 appellee's contention that this was the credit price of the truck is without merit, since there is nothing in the record to show that the rule of a bona fide credit price is applicable.
- Usury—precedents.—While former decisions which have become a rule of property will not be overruled retrospectively, the public is now given a caveat that the question whether a "time price differential" is permissible against a plea of usury may be reëxamined to determine whether it infringes on the constitutional mandate against usury.
- Usury—question for jury.—While the seller may, in a bona fide transaction, increase the price to compensate for the risk involved in making a sale on credit, there may be a question of fact as to whether the so-called credit price was bona fide or only a cloak for usury.
