{
  "id": 1576679,
  "name": "Simpson v. Montgomery County Bank",
  "name_abbreviation": "Simpson v. Montgomery County Bank",
  "decision_date": "1918-01-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "95",
  "last_page": "97",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "132 Ark. 95"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "35 Ark. 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873849
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/35/0217-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ark. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1896176
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/41/0331-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 3660,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3021710918281336
    },
    "sha256": "59e98dbb46d3ff641eb1ba21dd4071b2a530834be5c416c93ba606ae382dfcc7",
    "simhash": "1:9f9ba412d42a7d32",
    "word_count": 661
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:26:58.757040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Simpson v. Montgomery County Bank."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HART, J.\nThe Montgomery County Bank instituted this action in the chancery court against John T. Simpson and Mattie Simpson, to obtain judgment on a note for $126.25 and to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate to secure the same. The defendants interposed the defense of usury. The material facts are as follows:\nThe Montgomery County Bank obtained a judgment against John T. Simpson before a justice of the peace and a transcript of the judgment was filed with the circuit clerk. An execution was issued and the land in controversy was sold to Gr. Cox, who was president of the bank, and who purchased the land for the bank in satisfaction of its judgment. Cox instituted an action in ejectment against .Simpson for the land. Simpson defended the suit on the ground that the land belonged to Mattie J. Simpson, his wife. The note sued on was given by Simpson to H. A. King to effect a settlement of the ejectment suit. The note was payable to H. A. King, who was the attorney for Simpson, and King transferred the note to the bank.\nAccording to the testimony of Simpson, $75 of the note was for the settlement of the claim of the bank against him; $25 was for the settlement of his attorney\u2019s fee to King; $1.50 for the recording of the mortgage on the land given to secure the note, and $25 as interest on the note or as bonus for the loan. The note was executed upon a blank form of the bank and bore interest at the rate of 10 per cent, per annum from date until paid.\nAccording to the testimony of L. L. Beavers, the cashier of the bank, the note was purchased before maturity by the bank in the usual course of business from H. A. King. He was asked the following: \u201cYou knew the circumstances under which Mr. King received this note?\u201d He answered, \u201cYes. It was given to compromise this lawsuit, and to secure his attorney\u2019s fee. \u201d He also testified that King was dead.\nThe chancellor found that the note was given in compromise of the ejectment suit and for the payment of the attorney\u2019s fee owed by Simpson to King. A decree was accordingly entered for the amount of the note sued on and for a foreclosure of the mortgage given to secure it. The defendant has appealed.\nAccording to the settled rule of this court the findings of fact made by a chancellor will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are against a preponderance of the evidence.\nAccording to the testimony of the cashier of the bank, the note in question was made up of $75 which went to the payment of the compromise between the bank and Simpson, and $50 for the payment of the attorney\u2019s fees owed by Simpson to H. A. King. The remaining $1.50 was the fee for recording the mortgage.\nIt is true the testimony of the cashier was contradicted by that of Simpson but, tested by the rule above announced, 'it can not be said that the finding of the chancellor is against the preponderance of the evidence.\nTherefore the decree will be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HART, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. H. Herndon, for appellant.",
      "Gibson Witt, for appellee; Earl Witt, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Simpson v. Montgomery County Bank.\nOpinion delivered January 28, 1918.\nAppeal and error \u2014 finding of chancellor \u2014 consideration for NOTE. \u2014 In an action on a note and the foreclosure of a mortgage given to secure it, the defendant pleaded usury. Held, the finding of the chancellor that the note was not usurious, would not be disturbed on anneal.\nAppeal from Montgomery Chancery Court; J. P. Henderson, Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nG. H. Herndon, for appellant.\nThe note was void for usury. 41 Ark. 331; 83 Id. 31, etc.\nGibson Witt, for appellee; Earl Witt, of counsel.\nThere was no usury. 35 Ark. 217; 55 Id. 143; 56 Id. 334; 67 Id. 426; 99 Id. 626.\nThe chancellor so found and his findings are not against the preponderance of the evidence."
  },
  "file_name": "0095-01",
  "first_page_order": 119,
  "last_page_order": 121
}