Court Opinion

ID: 9444813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:12:58.628592+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:01.096581
License: Public Domain

JONES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot join with the majority. The basic transactions, as I see them, were sales of trucks by Baggett Transportation Company to the plaintiffs. The defendant bank bought from Baggett Transportation Company conditional sale contracts executed by the plaintiffs. There was no contractual relationship between plaintiffs and defendant. The furnishing of forms, the computation of installments and discussions regarding the purchase of the paper are not, I think, such factors as convert a sale by one person into a loan by another. My view is that if the plaintiffs paid usury it was to *358or fór the account of their vendor, Bag-gett Transportation Company, not the defendant bank; and if the bank exacted usury it was from Baggett Transportation Company, not the plaintiffs. The District Court so held and I would affirm its judgment.