| 18th month„ | 2.57 | 65.96 | 202.02 |
| 19th month„ | 1.94 | 66.59 | 135.43 |
| 20th month„ | 1.30 | 67.23 | 68.20 |
| 21st month„ | .65 | 67.88 | ——— |
| ——— | ——— | ||
| 141.21 | 1297.92 | ||
| -.32 | .32 | ||
| ——— | ——— | ||
| $140.89 | $1298.24 |
(a) that Hare and Meeks agreed that $289.13 would be added to the $1,150, in order to cover insurance, interest, and carrying charges; (b) that the parties thought the $289.13 listed as "time price differential (including any insurance)", was a perfectly legal addition, and; (c) that it was not until months after the trade was made and after Hare claimed usury, that it was ascertained that the insurance premium was $148.24, and the interest and other charges were $140.89.
The evidence fails to show that Meeks acted as the agent of General Contract Purchase Corporation in this case, so there was a sale by Meeks to Hare, and the transfer of the note and papers by Meeks to General Contract Purchase Corporation. The question is whether such "time price differential" is legally permissible against the plea of usury even when there is a sale on which to predicate such increased price.
In a long line of cases, we have permitted the seller, under one guise or another, to do exactly what was done in the case at bar, and we have permitted the transferee of the paper to recover in just such a situation. Some of such cases are: Garst v. General Contract Purchase Corp., 211 Ark. 526, 201 S. W. 2d 757; Harper v. Futrell, 204 Ark. 822, 164 S. W. 2d 995, 143 A. L. R. 235; General Contract Purchase Corp. v. Holland, 196 Ark. 675, 119 S. W. 2d 535; Cheairs v. McDermott Motor Co., 175 Ark. 1126, 2 S. W. 2d 1111; Standard Motors v. Mitchell, 173 Ark. 875, 298 S. W. 1026, 57 A. L. R. 877; and Smith v. Kaufman, 145 Ark. 548, 224 S. W. 978.
In the case at bar, the parties dealt on the strength of the aforesaid holdings, which have become a rule of property, and we must not overrule these cases retro-
