{
  "id": 1650124,
  "name": "General Contract Corporation v. William H. Dodge",
  "name_abbreviation": "General Contract Corp. v. Dodge",
  "decision_date": "1954-04-12",
  "docket_number": "5-380",
  "first_page": "476",
  "last_page": "479",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 Ark. 476"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "266 S.W.2d 816"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "222 Ark. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1652856
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/222/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 Ark. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1653068
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/222/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 Ark. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1660015
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/220/0601-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 363,
    "char_count": 5607,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.494494574994367e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34387989415599135
    },
    "sha256": "3a7d5a0f8bcc840eb1f692fc04b6be718cea355cd24bb9e98d6c0cf130a48fa6",
    "simhash": "1:d56aa9c6e01dfe16",
    "word_count": 961
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:33.600099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "General Contract Corporation v. William H. Dodge."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "J. Seaborn Holt, J.\nThis is a case of alleged usury and arises out of a Conditional Sales Contract for the purchase of a Pontiac automobile by appellee, Dodge, on May 9, 1952, from the Dutch O\u2019Neal Motors, Inc., \u2014 not a party here. The transaction occurred prior to the effective date of the caveat (June 30, 1952) in the case of Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corporation, 220 Ark. 601, 249 S. W. 2d 973.\nAppellee alleged in his complaint, in effect, that on May 9,1952, he purchased the car in question from Dutch 0 \u2019Neal Motors, Inc. for $2,200, on which he made a down payment of $767, leaving an unpaid balance of $1,433, that at the time he signed a Conditional Sales Contract under which he was supposed to pay 5% on the unpaid balance, that later, after receiving a copy of the contract, he learned that a purchase price of $2,400 with an interest charge of $395 was stated therein, and an insurance premium charge of $162 on which appellant received a commission as agent and that the transaction was usurious and fraudulent. He asked that the sales contract and note he cancelled and title to the automobile vested in him.\nO\u2019Neal Motors answered separately with a general denial, specifically pleaded that the contract was a true time sales transaction and pleaded stare decisis as a complete defense. A nonsuit was taken as to it. General Contract Corporation answered with a general denial and also alleged it was a true time sales contract and stare decisis as a complete bar. In a cross complaint, appellant, General Contract Corporation, alleged default in making monthly payments by appellee, that it was the owner of the car of the value of $2,000, and prayed for judgment for its possession or value.\nTrial resulted in a decree for appellee, Dodge. The decree recited: \u2018 \u2018 The court further finds as a matter of fact that $2,200 was the selling price of the Pontiac automobile. That there was credited on the $2,200, $767, as a down payment, leaving a balance of $1,433; that an insurance policy was issued protecting plaintiff and defendants for collision or upset; the cost of insurance being $162, leaving a balance to be financed of $1,595; that plaintiff was charged on such balance of $1,595, interest far in excess of 10% per annum.\n\u2018 \u2018 That actually this transaction was a loan of money from General Contract Corporation to plaintiff and a sale of personal property by Dutch O\u2019Neal Motors, Inc. to plaintiff and that the contract showing a total price of $2,795 was a device to cover usury, and a fraud as to plaintiff. That there was no bona ficle credit price or time sale and that the whole scheme was one to evade and avoid the constitutional mandate against usury.\n\u2018 \u2018 That the note and contract should be declared void and that the lien securing same should be invalidated and the cloud on plaintiff\u2019s title to the Pontiac automobile be removed.\u201d\nOn the record presented, we hold that this case is governed by our opinions in Crisco v. Murdock Acceptance Corp., 222 Ark. 127, 258 S. W. 2d 551, and Aunspaugh v. Murdoch Acceptance Corp., 222 Ark. 141, 258 S. W. 2d 559, wherein the facts were substantially similar.\nIt is undisputed that the transaction here was con-summated on May 9, 1952, prior to the finality of our decision in the Hare case, above. The sales contract shows purchase by appellee of the car in question from Dutch O\u2019Neal Motors, Inc. \u201cTime differential price (credit purchase price) \u2014 $2,795.\u2014Down payment, cash\u2014 $767,\u201d payable $84.50 on or before June 24, 1952, and $84.50 on the 24th of each month thereafter. The bottom portion of the face of the instrument is a note signed by appellee, dated May 9, 1952, for $2,028, payable to the dealer in twenty-four consecutive monthly installments of $84.50 beginning June 24, 1952, with provision for acceleration of balance upon default of any installment. The reverse of the sales contract shows assignment by the dealer with warranty of validity of the instrument, that it was read by appellee and that all statements were true, etc.\nA Retail Buyers Order dated May 9, 1952, signed by appellee contains the following recital: \u201cCash delivered price in North Little Rock \u2014 $2,421.\u2014Cash on delivery\u2014 $767. \u2014 Bal. 24 notes of $84.50 each starting 45 days\u2014 $1,633.\u201d\nAppellee, a licensed attorney, admitted signing the sales contract here in question. He intended to purchase on a time, or credit, basis and was credited with a down payment of $767 and agreed to pay twenty-four monthly payments of $84.50 each. He testified: \u201cA. That was my agreement to pay twenty-four notes at $84.50, and I just told you that $767, that is $600 plus $167, I knew I was getting credit for that, that is right. * * * It was my understanding I was to pay twenty-four notes at $84.50. That would total up to $2,200 plus insurance, plus 5% interest. That was it. As far as those additional figures in there, I had no understanding of that at all.\u201d\nThe transaction here appears to have been consummated under the accepted practice in this State prior to the Hare case, above, and in accordance with our holdings in the Crisco v. Murdoch Acceptance Corp. and Aunspaugh v. Murdoch Acceptance Corp. eases, above, the decree must be reversed.\nIt could serve no useful purpose to reiterate what we said in those cases. Accordingly, the decree is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to enter a decree consistent with this opinion.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "J. Seaborn Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rector, Cockrill, Limerick & Laser, for appellant.",
      "John K. Shamburger, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "General Contract Corporation v. William H. Dodge.\n5-380\n266 S. W. 2d 816\nOpinion delivered April 12, 1954.\nRector, Cockrill, Limerick & Laser, for appellant.\nJohn K. Shamburger, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0476-01",
  "first_page_order": 498,
  "last_page_order": 501
}