Hornsby v. Rush

155 So. 637, 26 Ala. App. 170, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 83
Alabama Court of Appeals·Decided May 22, 1934·No. 3 Div. 751.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SAMPORD, Justice.

The action was on a promissory note. The plea was usury, in short by consent. The cause was submitted to the trial judge, sitting without a jury, on an agreed statement of facts.

Under the evidence the consideration for the note sued on was $92.50 and a coupon issued by “Merchants Coupon Service Company” of the face value of $10 and an agreed value of $7.50. The defendant executed the note for $100 and by agreement accepted as the consideration $92.50 in cash and the coupon for $10 at a discount of $2.50. This coupon defendant afterwards used in making payment for a purchase of goods, at its face value. The note called for 8 per cent, interest per annum. This is not usury and the trial court so correctly held. 66 Corpus Juris 172 (§ 61); Hogan v. Thompson, 186 Ark. 497, 54 S.W.(2d) 303.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Hornsby v. Rush, 155 So. 637, 26 Ala. App. 170, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 83 (Ala. Ct. App. 1934).

155 So. 637 (Hornsby v. Rush) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Willis v. Buchman
199 So. 886 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1940)
Glover v. Buchman
104 S.W.2d 66 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Hornsby v. Rush
155 So. 638 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)