Court Opinion

ID: 9827449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:33:50.605896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:31.553826
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants have presented a very forceful motion for rehearing in which they vigorously assail the conclusions expressed in our main opinion. The writer of that opinion must have been unusually inept and obscure in the language used to express the conclusions of the court if the criticisms of the opinion contained in the motion are justified. No denial will be made of the fact upon which one of these criticisms is based. The opinion does largely follow the argument and conclusions presented in appellee’s brief, and we respectfully decline to offer any excuse or apology for so doing. We will add, however, in all sincerity, that, if the court had reached a contrary conclusion upon the controlling question in the case, the writer of the opinion would have with equal satisfaction largely adopted the very able argument of the author of appellants’ brief and of the motion for rehearing.
This court did not and does not hold that Kirby holds the property of the bankrupt estate acquired by him in trust for the former creditors of the estate for like amounts as the advances made by them to enable Kirby to operate the property. Our conclusion that the note sued on is not usurious is the sole basis for our affirmance of the judgment.
It seems to us that to predicate usury upon the facts of this case would be to place too literal a construction upon the language of the statute, and to thereby subvert its protective purposes into means of oppression and obstruction of the honest effort.of unfortunate debtors to meet their just obligations.
It cannot be contended that the two $15,000 notes were not valid, lawful obligations on their face, and, if they had not been executed as a part of the same transaction, no question of usury would have been raised.
We 'are unwilling to hold that, because these notes were executed at the same time, and the execution of one was a consideration for the other, the transaction thereby becomes usurious. Each of the notes being supported by sufficient valid consideration, it is hard to see how one could destroy the other, and we cannot so hold.
We adhere to the conclusions expressed in our original opinion, and the motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.