Opinion ID: 1658265
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Comparative Tables, 1 and 2.

Text: ________________________________________________________ Int. Payment Payment Rate On Month Prinicpal (10%) Principal Balance ________________________________________________________ 1 $1,484.40 $12.37 $59.63 $1,424.77 2 11.87 60.13 1,364.64 3 11.37 60.63 1,304.01 4 11.87 60.63 1,242.88 5 10.36 61.64 1,181.24 6 9.84 62.16 1,119.08 7 9.33 62.67 1,056.41 8 8.80 63.20 993.21 9 8.28 63.72 929.49 10 7.75 64.25 865.24 11 7.21 64.79 800.45 12 6.67 65.33 735.12 13 6.13 65.87 669.25 14 5.58 66.42 602.83 15 5.02 66.98 535.85 16 4.47 67.53 468.32 17 3.90 68.10 400.22 18 3.34 68.66 331.56 19 2.76 69.24 262.32 20 2.19 69.81 192.51 21 1.60 70.40 122.11 22 1.02 70.98 51.13 23 .43 51.13 -0- 23 (Excess) 20.44 24  72.00 __________________________________ $243.60 $1,484.40 $1,728.00 __________________________________ _______________________________________________________ Effective Int. Rate Principal Month Principal 15.025 Payments Balance _______________________________________________________ 1 $1,484.40 $18.59 $53.41 $1,430.99 2 17.92 54.08 1,376.91 3 17.24 54.76 1,322.15 4 16.55 55.45 1,266.70 5 15.86 56.14 1,210.56 6 15.16 56.84 1,153.72 7 14.45 57.55 1,096.17 8 13.72 58.28 1,037.89 9 13.00 59.00 978.89 10 12.26 59.74 919.15 11 11.51 60.49 858.66 12 10.75 61.25 797.41 13 9.98 62.02 735.39 14 9.21 62.79 672.60 15 8.42 63.58 609.02 16 7.63 64.37 544.65 17 6.82 65.18 479.47 18 6.00 66.00 413.47 19 5.18 66.82 346.65 20 4.34 67.66 278.99 21 3.49 68.51 210.48 22 2.64 69.36 141.12 23 1.77 70.23 70.89 24 .89 71.11 .22 ________________________________ $243.38 $1,484.62 $1,728.00 ________________________________ We conclude that there was an unauthorized charge in the nature of a device to evade usury, and the contract is unenforcible. So are the notes. Payments aggregating $1,152 were made before the suit was filed and the company's right to retain this money is not questioned. The trial court directed certain deposits by Schuck pendente lite, which of course will be returned to appellant. All costs will be borne by the appellees. Reversed. McFADDIN, J., (concurring). Sparks v. Robinson, 66 Ark. 460, 51 S.W. 460, 461, was a case involving usury; and parol evidence was permitted to show that the written instrument did not reflect the