Hornsby v. Rush

Alabama Court of Appeals

Hornsby v. Rush

155 So. 637, 26 Ala. App. 170, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 83

CourtAlabama Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 1934

Docket3 Div. 751.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 155 So. 637 (Hornsby v. Rush) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Alabama Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 637, 26 Ala. App. 170, 1934 Ala. App. LEXIS 83, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hornsby-v-rush-alactapp-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack