State Nat. Bank of Shawnee v. Williamson

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

State Nat. Bank of Shawnee v. Williamson

1918 OK 321, 173 P. 445, 70 Okla. 111, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 751

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedMay 28, 1918

Docket9030

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 1918 OK 321 (State Nat. Bank of Shawnee v. Williamson) 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

State Nat. Bank of Shawnee v. Williamson, 1918 OK 321, 173 P. 445, 70 Okla. 111, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 751 (Okla. 1918).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

HOOKER, O.

In the petition in this action it is alleged that the defendant in error, on the 8th day of January, 1915, borrowed from the bank of Earlsboro the sum of $175. and executed his note payable to said bank in the sum of $206.50, due and payable on October 1, 1916, and that on or about the 27th day of September, 1915, the bank of Earlsboro sold the note in question to the State National Bank of Shawnee, and that upon the maturity of said note payment was made to the State National Bank of Shawnee of the amount due, and that the payment as made embraced usury in the sum of $31.50, and this action was instituted by the defendant in error against the State National Bank of Shawnee to recover the sum of $63. The cause was tried to a jury, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff below against the bank for the sum of $47.85. Th'e plaintiff in error has appealed here, and urges as the main reason for a reversal of this cause the fact that the proof was insufficient to establish knowledge of usury upon the part of the State National Bank at the time of the payment of this note by the defendant in error.

The defendant in error testified that at the time he paid said note, he told the officers of the bank that there was usury embraced therein. Under the testimony of' the defendant in error, the bank had knowledge of the usury embraced in the note paid by the defendant in error. The evidence supports and justifies the judgment of the trial court, and we are not authorized to disturb the verdict of the jury, as the same is reasonably supported by the evidence in this record.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

HOOKER, O.

In the petition in this action it is alleged that the defendant in error, on the 8th day of January, 1915, borrowed from the bank of Earlsboro the sum of $175. and executed his note payable to said bank in the sum of $206.50, due and payable on October 1, 1916, and that on or about the 27th day of September, 1915, the bank of Earlsboro sold the note in question to the State National Bank of Shawnee, and that upon the maturity of said note payment was made to the State National Bank of Shawnee of the amount due, and that the payment as made embraced usury in the sum of $31.50, and this action was instituted by the defendant in error against the State National Bank of Shawnee to recover the sum of $63. The cause was tried to a jury, and a judgment rendered in favor of the plaintiff below against the bank for the sum of $47.85. Th'e plaintiff in error has appealed here, and urges as the main reason for a reversal of this cause the fact that the proof was insufficient to establish knowledge of usury upon the part of the State National Bank at the time of the payment of this note by the defendant in error.

The defendant in error testified that at the time he paid said note, he told the officers of the bank that there was usury embraced therein. Under the testimony of' the defendant in error, the bank had knowledge of the usury embraced in the note paid by the defendant in error. The evidence supports and justifies the judgment of the trial court, and we are not authorized to disturb the verdict of the jury, as the same is reasonably supported by the evidence in this record.

The judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1918 OK 321, 173 P. 445, 70 Okla. 111, 1918 Okla. LEXIS 751, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-nat-bank-of-shawnee-v-williamson-okla-1918.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack