Case Name: L. B. Varn, Plaintiff in Error, v. Samuel H. White, Defendant in Error
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1914-11-24
Citations: 68 Fla. 329
Docket Number: 
Parties: L. B. Varn, Plaintiff in Error, v. Samuel H. White, Defendant in Error.
Judges: Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Reporter: Florida Reports
Volume: 68
Pages: 329–330

Head Matter:
L. B. Varn, Plaintiff in Error, v. Samuel H. White, Defendant in Error.
Opinion Filed November 24, 1914.
1. A note bearing interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, payable semi-annually, is not usurious.
2. In the absence of a bill of exceptions, upon a trial before a jury, it will be presumed that there was evidence supporting the plaintiff’s demand for an attorney’s fee, that the judgment awards.
Writ of error to Circuit Court for Hernando County; W. S. Bullock, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
F. B. Gooffler, for Plaintiff in Error;
Gary W. Alexander, for Defendant in Error.

Opinion:
Cockrell, J.
This is an action on a promissory note for principal, interest and an attorney's fee.
The notes call for ten per cent interest per annum, payable semi-annually. Yarn sought to plead usury as a partial defense, upon the theory that making the ten per cent inlerest the maximum allowed by the law, payable semiannually, offended the statute. In line with practically all other courts, we have held that this does not constitute usury. See Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 South. Rep. 512; Meyer v. City of Muscatine, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 384; Mowry v. Bishop, 5 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 98; Monnet v. Sturges, 25 Ohio St. 384.
The declaration clearly demanded an attorney's fee, and as there was a trial before a jury, with both parties present, we must assume in the absence of a bill of exceptions that there was sufficient evidence upon which the amount of this fee was fixed so as to support the finding of the total amount then due, as fixed by the verdict.
This case is wholly unlike that of Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30, 29 South. Rep. 633, where an endorser without notice of the dishonor of the note was sought to be held for an attorney's fee.
Judgment affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.