Court Opinion

ID: 9778370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:01:52.620277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:08.041629
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. I concur in the results reached by the majority. However, I would state we are overruling Cagle v. Boyle Mortgage Co., 261 Ark. 437, 549 S.W. 2d 474 (1977), and other cases along the same line of reasoning. Like the trial judge I cannot distinguish the facts in the present case from those in Cagle. In both cases there was a note and mortgage bearing the stated interest rate of 10%. In each case it was argued that the computer printout containing the schedule of payments was in error in charging an interest rate above 10%. The fact that in one case it was only done once and the other it had been done on other occasions is not sufficient to distinguish the cases for me. This is very similar to the argument that one may be just a little bit pregnant. If one of these cases is usurious, so is the other. If one is not usurious, neither is the other. In my opinion we should call a spade a spade and overrule Cagle, supra. As it stands, the lawyers and the courts will just have to guess at which case we may decide to follow.