Case ID: ark_222/html/0200-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Ed. F. MoFaddin, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation v. Crossley.
    5-68
    258 S. W. 2d 562
    Opinion delivered May 25, 1953.
    Rehearing denied June 22, 1953.
    
      Wright, Harrison, Lindsey Upton and Cockrill, Limerick $ Laser, for appellant.
    
      Josh W. Mcllughes, Brooks Bradley and Tilghman E. Dixon, for appellee.
   Ed. F. MoFaddin, Justice.

This is another case in which usury is pleaded against a conditional sales contract. The transaction here involved occurred prior to the date the opinion in the Hare case became final.

In purchasing an automobile, appellee Crossley signed a conditional sales contract, which reads in part:

“Payable in cash or trade-in before delivery............$232.80
Leaving Time Balance of......................................................... 853.65
Payable . . . in 21 successive monthly installments....................................................................................... 40.65”

After our opinion in the Hare case, Crossley brought this suit to have his contract declared usurious. The Trial Court agreed with Crossley, and Universal C. I. T. has appealed. The fact remains that some of the items charged against Crossley — which would be indicia of usury under the Hare case — are items permitted under cases governing transactions entered into before the opinion in the Hare case became final. The present case is in all respects ruled by our opinion in Crisco v. Murdock, 222 Ark. 127, 258 S. W. 2d 551.

Therefore, the decree of the Trial Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Mr. Justice Ward concurs. 
      
       Some other recent cases, similar to this one, are: Murdock v. Higgins, 222 Ark. 140, 258 S. W. 2d 559; Aunspaugh v. Murdock, 222 Ark. 141, 258 S. W. 2d 559; Crisco v. Murdock, 222 Ark. 127, 258 S. W. 2d 551; Kensinger v. Tippet, 222 Ark. 199, 258 S. W. 2d 561; and Perry v. Duncan, 222 Ark. 160, 258 S. W. 2d 560.
     
      
       The “Hare case” is Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp., 220 Ark. 601, 249 S. W. 2d 973. The opinion in the Hare case was delivered on May 26, 1952, and the petition for rehearing was denied on June 30, 1952.
     
      
       Some such cases are Cheairs v. McDermott, 175 Ark. 1126, 2 S. W. 2d 1111; General Contract v. Holland, 196 Ark. 675, 119 S. W. 2d 535; Harper v. Futrell, 204 Ark. 822, 164 S. W. 2d 995, 143 A. L. R. 235; and Garst v. General Contract, 211 Ark. 526, 201 S. W. 2d 757.