Sawyer v. Dickson

48 S.W. 903, 66 Ark. 77, 1898 Ark. LEXIS 148
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedDecember 24, 1898
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 48 S.W. 903 (Sawyer v. Dickson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sawyer v. Dickson, 48 S.W. 903, 66 Ark. 77, 1898 Ark. LEXIS 148 (Ark. 1898).

Opinion

Hughes, J.

This is an appeal from a decree in chancery, in which the appellees, the plaintiffs below, sought foreclosure of a deed of trust given to secure notes therein described, and to have the land conveyed by the deed sold for payment of the notes. The defense was usury. The answer prayed for cancellation of the notes and deed of trust. The court found for appellees, and decreed cancellation of the notes and deed of trust, from which the ease comes here up&n appeal.

The evidence discloses that the notes secured by the trust deed were dated and made payable at Kansas City, Missouri. The trust deed was given upon lands in Arkansas, and was acknowledged in the state of Arkansas. There was no proof of the statutes of the state of Missouri upon usury. If the contract was good in Missouri, it is good here. We do not take judicial notice of the statutes of another state.

The court will not presume a contract to be usurious. To maintain a plea of usury, it must be sustained by clear proof. Holt v. Kirby, 57 Ark. 250. The rights of parties to contracts made and to be performed in another state will be adjudicated by the courts of this state precisely as they would be adjudicated in the courts of the state where the contracts were made and to be performed. Parsons Oil Co. v. Boyett, 44 Ark. 230; Matthews v. Paine, 47 Ark. 54; Bank of Harrison v. Gibson, 60 Ark. 269; Tenny v. Porter, 61 Ark. 329.

Outside of the fatal objection above stated, we think the proof does not show that the notes were usurious.

Reversed and remanded, with directions to the court below to render a decree for the amount due upon the notes, including interest, and for foreclosure of the trust deed.

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

Related

Dye v. Precision Foundation Specialties & Flow Rite Drainage Solutions, Inc.
2022 Ark. App. 220 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2022)
Hayes v. First National Bank of Memphis
507 S.W.2d 701 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1974)
Geyer v. First Arkansas Development Finance Corp.
434 S.W.2d 301 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1968)
Dodd v. Axle-Nut Sign Co.
189 S.W. 663 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1916)
Ringer v. Virgin Timber Co.
213 F. 1001 (E.D. Arkansas, 1914)
Lawler v. Lawler
153 S.W. 1113 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)
Hough v. Maupin
84 S.W. 717 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 S.W. 903, 66 Ark. 77, 1898 Ark. LEXIS 148, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sawyer-v-dickson-ark-1898.