Court Opinion

ID: 6861278
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 20:48:56.190784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:05:14.869241
License: Public Domain

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.
I concur in the reversal of the judgment for the reasons stated by Judge Bratton, and for the further reason the evidence fairly established that usury was not exacted.
The claim of the plaintiff is summarized in the record as follows:
Face of contracts.... $1,276,366.82
Amount advanced... 1,112,236.86
Total charge........ 164,129.96
Insurance......... $30,391.60
Dealers reserve..... 20,769.81
Rebates............ 4,494.86
Three O. protection.. 9,913.09
Collection service... 3,600.00
- 69,169.27
Interest charged.... 94,960.69
This plaintiff asserts is 16% per annum.
I have found it impossible to take the gross figures and arrive at the interest charged because there is no way of determining the period during which the money was used, the maturity date of the contracts varying, and an average not being accurate. Therefore, I have taken a typical contract and determined the interest charged on it, as follows:
Face of contract.................. $540.00
Amount received by plaintiff....... 452.00
Deduction........................' 88.00
Less:
Fire and theft insurance.... $23.82 Rate on three O. insurance.. 11.00
Dealer’s reserve............ 6.78
Collection service........... 9.10
A total of........................ 50.70
Leaving for interest............... 37.30
or slightly less than 10% per annum on $486, the amount advanced, plus the insurance charges.
Plaintiff undertook to fix the value of the three C. protection at the actual losses suffered by the defendant. That manifestly is incorrect. No insurer would carry a risk for a premium equal to the actual amount paid out for losses. The figure I have used is the established rate for such insurance, as testified, to by an'expert called by the defendant.
*389Clyde T. Thompson, general manager of plaintiff, testified that the value of the collection service for the period of three years was $3,600. He based this on the cost of one collector. This was obviously wrong. The evidence of defendant showed many persons rendered the service, and that the actual cost thereof was $12.22 per contract. I have eliminated from defendant’s figures $1.11 for executive office expense, 69 cents for depreciation, and $1.32 for taxes, leaving a cost per contract of $9.10. It is of eourse absurd to say installment collections could be handled for $1.00 per contract, which is approximately the figure used by the plaintiff.
I therefore conclude the proof failed to establish usury, and that the court should have directed a verdict.