Case ID: okla_62/html/0047-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BURFORD, C.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MIDLAND SAVINGS & LOAN CO. v. DRAKE et al.
    No. 5423
    Opinion Filed Dec. 12, 1916.
    (161 Pac. 787.)
    Usurious Contracts.
    The syllabus in Midland Savings & Loan Company v. Henderson & Beats, 47 Okla. 693, 150 Pae. 868, L. R. A. 1916D, 745 is adopted as the law of this case.
    (Syllabus by Burford, C.)
    Error from District Court, Muskogee County; R. C. Allen, Judge.
    Action by the Midland Savings &' Loan Company against Nettie Drake and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.
    Reversed for further proceedings.
    B. G. Wood and A. J. Bryant, for plaintiff in error.
    William T. Hutchings, guardian ad litem of Dorothy Perryman, pro se.
   Opinion by

BURFORD, C.

Plaintiff in error sued to foreclose a mortgage based upon a building and loan contract. Upon the trial the court found that the contract was usurious upon its face, and rendered judgment for defendants. The contract was entered into prior to statehood, and the mortgage covered lands in the then Indian Territory. It is not necessary to set out the various terms of the building and loan contract or mortgage as they appear to be practically identical with those set out and passed upon by this court in Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Henderson & Beats, 47 Okla. 693, 150 Pac. 868, L. R. A. 1916D, 745, and the principles decided in that case, as well as Legg v. Midland Savings & Loan Co., 55 Okla. 137, 154 Pac. 682, and Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Kuntz, 58 Okla. 156, 158 Pac. 604, are decisive of the case at bar. The cases of Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Deaton, 57 Okla. 622, 157 Pac. 285, Midland Savings & Loan Co. v. Summers, 58 Okla. 641, 160 Pac. 488, and similar cases were decided upon contracts made since the admission of Oklahoma into the Union, and are inapplicable here.

Upon the authority ’of Midland S. & L. Co. v. Henderson, supra, the contract involved in the case at bar was not usurious upon its face, and the court erred in so holding.

The cause should be reversed for further proceedings.

By the Court: It is so ordered.