Baker v. Pittsburg Mortgage Inv. Co.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Baker v. Pittsburg Mortgage Inv. Co.

1918 OK 75, 171 P. 23, 67 Okla. 310, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 268

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedFebruary 12, 1918

Docket8109

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1918 OK 75 (Baker v. Pittsburg Mortgage Inv. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baker v. Pittsburg Mortgage Inv. Co., 1918 OK 75, 171 P. 23, 67 Okla. 310, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 268 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinions

KANE, J.

This was an action upon a promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage given ¡to secure tbe payment thereof, commenced by tbe defendant in error, plaintiff below, against tbe plaintiffs in error, defendants below. Hereafter, for convenience, tbe parties will be designated “plaintiff” and ‘'defendants,” respectively, as they appeared in the trial court. Tbe petition was in tbe usual form, and admittedly stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The answer admitted tbe execution of the note and mortgage sued upon, and by way of defense alleged facts which the pleader says show that the instruments sued upon were usurious, and “that by reason of the amount of interest which said notes and mortgage carried with them, and the amount which was agreed to be paid thereon, the plaintiff, by charging said rate of interest, incurred tbe penalty of the usury law, to wit, double the entire amount of said usurious interest charged; ‘that the total so charged was the sum of $830.78; that the total amount which said contract, if i-t had been made according to law, at 10 per cent, per annum, was the sum of $458.87; that by reason of the said transaction the plaintiff forfeited the sum of $1,661.56.” Wherefore they pray that the plaintiff take nothing by its suit; that said notes and mortgage be declared canceled and annulled, and that the sum of $1,661.56 he declared forfeited on said 'transaction, and that these defendants' be allowed credit for the further sum of $26, overcharge of interest in addition to said forfeiture; that said coupon note be declared paid and discharged, and the notes herein sued on be declared paid and discharged, and the said mortgages annulled by reason of .said forfeiture, and that these defendants have judgments over against plaintiff for the balance of said adjudged forfeiture, and for general relief. After reply, in effect, a general denial, tbe plaintiff withdrew the same, and moved the court for judgment on the pleadings, which motion was sustained, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced.

From the admitted facts it appears that the trial court rightly decided the case upon the authority of Metz et al. v. Winne, 15 Okla. 1, 79 Pac. 223, and it is conceded by the parties that, unless the court overrules or modifies the proposition of law stated in the first paragraph of the syllabus of that ease, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. The opinion in Metz et al. v. Winne, supra, was handed down by the territorial Supreme Court in September, 1904, and the proposition of law stated in the first paragraph of the syllabus has been approved at least twice by tbe Supreme Court of the state since statehood. Covington et al. v. Fisher, 22 Okla. 207, 97 Pac. 615; Garland et al. v. Union Trust Co. et al., 49 Okla. 654, 165 Pac. 197. In the latter case, after a very full examination and review of the authorities, the court adheres to the doctrine announced in Metz et al. v. Winne, and Covington et al. v. Fisher, supra. In view of tbe recent discussion of this question and the conclusion reached by the court, further discussion here would serve no useful purpose.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, upon the authority of Metz et al. v. Winne, Covington et al. v. Fisher, and Garland et al. v. Union Trust Co. et al., supra.

All the Justices concur, except Mr. Justice THACKER, who expresses his views in a separate opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KANE, J.

This was an action upon a promissory note and to foreclose a mortgage given ¡to secure tbe payment thereof, commenced by tbe defendant in error, plaintiff below, against tbe plaintiffs in error, defendants below. Hereafter, for convenience, tbe parties will be designated “plaintiff” and ‘'defendants,” respectively, as they appeared in the trial court. Tbe petition was in tbe usual form, and admittedly stated facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The answer admitted tbe execution of the note and mortgage sued upon, and by way of defense alleged facts which the pleader says show that the instruments sued upon were usurious, and “that by reason of the amount of interest which said notes and mortgage carried with them, and the amount which was agreed to be paid thereon, the plaintiff, by charging said rate of interest, incurred tbe penalty of the usury law, to wit, double the entire amount of said usurious interest charged; ‘that the total so charged was the sum of $830.78; that the total amount which said contract, if i-t had been made according to law, at 10 per cent, per annum, was the sum of $458.87; that by reason of the said transaction the plaintiff forfeited the sum of $1,661.56.” Wherefore they pray that the plaintiff take nothing by its suit; that said notes and mortgage be declared canceled and annulled, and that the sum of $1,661.56 he declared forfeited on said 'transaction, and that these defendants' be allowed credit for the further sum of $26, overcharge of interest in addition to said forfeiture; that said coupon note be declared paid and discharged, and the notes herein sued on be declared paid and discharged, and the said mortgages annulled by reason of .said forfeiture, and that these defendants have judgments over against plaintiff for the balance of said adjudged forfeiture, and for general relief. After reply, in effect, a general denial, tbe plaintiff withdrew the same, and moved the court for judgment on the pleadings, which motion was sustained, and judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff, to reverse which this proceeding in error was commenced.

From the admitted facts it appears that the trial court rightly decided the case upon the authority of Metz et al. v. Winne, 15 Okla. 1, 79 Pac. 223, and it is conceded by the parties that, unless the court overrules or modifies the proposition of law stated in the first paragraph of the syllabus of that ease, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed. The opinion in Metz et al. v. Winne, supra, was handed down by the territorial Supreme Court in September, 1904, and the proposition of law stated in the first paragraph of the syllabus has been approved at least twice by tbe Supreme Court of the state since statehood. Covington et al. v. Fisher, 22 Okla. 207, 97 Pac. 615; Garland et al. v. Union Trust Co. et al., 49 Okla. 654, 165 Pac. 197. In the latter case, after a very full examination and review of the authorities, the court adheres to the doctrine announced in Metz et al. v. Winne, and Covington et al. v. Fisher, supra. In view of tbe recent discussion of this question and the conclusion reached by the court, further discussion here would serve no useful purpose.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, upon the authority of Metz et al. v. Winne, Covington et al. v. Fisher, and Garland et al. v. Union Trust Co. et al., supra.

All the Justices concur, except Mr. Justice THACKER, who expresses his views in a separate opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 75, 171 P. 23, 67 Okla. 310, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baker-v-pittsburg-mortgage-inv-co-okla-1918.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack