Court Opinion

ID: 9661417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:38:38.001128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:27.749429
License: Public Domain

Ward, J. My dissent to the majority opinion in this case is based upon the following. First. Apparently it is admitted that appellant’s contention of usury is based on the charge that Hampton allowed her as a credit on the truck which she traded in only the sum of $490 whereas she understood and he agreed to allow her a credit of $653. If appellant takes the position that Hampton tricked or deceived her in the matter mentioned then I agree that, if true, this would constitute the basis for the charge of usury. We will discuss this eventuality later. However if appellant takes the position that there was an honest mistake made then she only had the right to sue Hampton for the difference. The record makes it clear that she is not pursuing that remedy. The transcript shows: “THE COURT: This action is not founded on anything but usury. Mr. White (attorney for appellant): That is right.” Moreover, if the discrepancy in the amount of credit claimed was a result of a mistake an action in usury would not lie. In Perry v. Shelby, 196 Ark. 541 (at page 546), 118 S. W. 2d 849, the court said: “While it is not necessary that both parties be cognizant of the fact or facts constituting usury, it is necessary that the lender have an intention to charge a usurious rate of interest or be cognizant of the fact or facts which constitute usury.” This court has many times held that a mistake can not be the basis for a suit in usury. Baxter v. Jackson, 193 Ark. 996, 104 S. W. 2d 202; Simpson v. Smith Savings Society, 178 Ark. 921, 12 S. W. 2d 890; Temple v. Hamilton, 178 Ark. 355, 11 S. W. 2d 465; Gilliam v. Peebles, 144 Ark. 573, 223 S. W. 14; Aldrich v. McClay, 75 Ark. 387, 87 S. W. 813; Jarvis v. Southern Grocery Company, 63 Ark. 225, 38 S. W. 148; Garvin v. Linton, 62 Ark. 370, 35 S. W. 430 and 37 S. W. 569; German Bank v. DeShon, 41 Ark. 331. Second. If then no question of a honest mistake is involved appellant must take the position that Hampton in some way induced her to make the trade by deceiving her into thinking she was getting more than $490 credit. Appellant’s own testimony conclusively refutes any idea that she was deceived or that she did not know when she made the trade that she was getting credit for only $490. Although appellant and her husband signed an affidavit, shown in the record, stating that Hampton never delivered to either of them “any so called car invoice in connection with the sale of the automobile” and although she repeated this contention in parts of her testimony, when pressed for a more specific answer as to what happened at the time the sale was made she said: “That was Saturday night. He [Hampton] gave me a little white sheet of paper, which was an invoice, had a lot of figures on it, but I didn’t pay much attention to the figures. Actually I was so excited about getting the car . . . and I guess I was careless in not going over the figures, but we did go over the invoice after we went for a ride to try out the car and after I went over the figures on the invoice he didn’t give me $600 trade in.” Again after being further pressed for details regarding “the little white paper” appellant testified: “Q. What did the invoice that you received show .1 A. It did not show any trade in allowance. Q. I understood you stated it showed you were allowed a less amount on the trade in than you thought you were entitled to receive 1 A. $490 I believe it showed.” It appears from the next to the last paragraph in the majority opinion that this case is being reversed because appellee introduced no evidence to show what credit Hampton meant to give. It is there stated: “but the weakness in the argument is that it is assumed Hampton’s understanding of the transaction was that a net credit of $450 instead of $600 was to be allowed on the truck traded in. However there is no evidence of what Hampton understood and Mrs. Thompson’s evidence is sufficient to make a prima facie case of usury. ’ ’ I cannot understand why the evidence leaves anything to be assumed in regard to the credit Hampton meant to give. It is true that he did not testify in this case but that was not necessary since appellant, as shown above, admitted that Hampton gave her a written statement showing the credit which he, Hampton, was allowing her.. Since the testimony as to the $490 credit is in the record it makes no difference whether it was produced by Hampton or appellant, except I would say that an admission by appellant has stronger probative value than a statement made by Hampton. The trial court heard all of appellant’s testimony and i-uled that she had xxot made out a prima facie case, axxd I submit that he was absolutely correct.