{
  "id": 1642455,
  "name": "Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation v. Hall",
  "name_abbreviation": "Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. v. Hall",
  "decision_date": "1955-05-23",
  "docket_number": "5-678",
  "first_page": "78",
  "last_page": "80",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 Ark. 78"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "279 S.W.2d 281"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "258 S. W. 2d 562",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1652880,
        1653113
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/222/0200-01",
        "/ark/222/0278-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 Ark. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1652880
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/222/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": 227,
    "char_count": 3037,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.54577246802983e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44784271206545245
    },
    "sha256": "c1e41f5a6e85c15f09608e1d2ab6715be5347768c4d81800367867b86784d90f",
    "simhash": "1:e3e0741fe124d4cc",
    "word_count": 459
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:58.446055+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation v. Hall."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "J. Seaborn Holt, J.\nThis is another case involving usury pleaded under a conditional sales contract.\nMarch 27, 1952, prior to June 30, 1952, the date on which our decision in Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp., 220 Ark. 601, 249 S. W. 2d 973, became final, appellee Hall, purchased a Dodge pickup truck from the Green-Mouton Motor Company in El Dorado, Arkansas. The invoice to appellee recited:\n\u201cThe selling price of 1948 Dodge pickup ....................................$695.00\n\u2018 \u2018 Less: Trade-in allowance of 1941 Chevrolet ........................ 245.00\n\u201cBalance ............................................................ 450.00\n\u201c18 Months Insurance......................... 112.48\n\u201cService Charge ....................................... 56.87\n\u201cTotal Contract..........................................$619.35\u201d\nA conditional sales contract was executed by appellee on the above date (March 27, 1952) in favor of Green-Mouton which recited a \u201cTime Balance\u201d of $619.35, and provided for fifteen monthly pajunents of $41.27 each. This contract was duly assigned by Green-Mouton to appellant, Universal C. I. T. Corporation.\nAppellee, after having made the payments for April, May and June of 1952 defaulted and brought the present' suit in which he sought to cancel the contract for usury, and to recover the three monthly payments which he made on the contract. Appellant\u2019s answer was a denial of every material allegation in the complaint not specifically admitted. The trial court found the contract usurious and ordered its cancellation but refused appellee\u2019s claim for a refund of the three payments on the ground that they were voluntarily made. From the decree is this appeal.\nIt is undisputed that the sales contract recited the price of the truck to be $695.00 and, after deducting $245.00 allowed on a trade-in, left a balance of $450.00. To-this balance was added $169.35 (making a total of $619.35) to cover interest, insurance purchased by appellee, and certain service charges under a finance plan including bail bond and credit identification. This $619.85 was described in the contract as the \u2018 \u2018 Time Balance \u2019 \u2019 and in the invoice above as \u2018 \u2018 Total Contract. \u2019 \u2019\n'While some of the items charged against appellee Hall might have been considered usurious under our holding in the Hare case above, however, such items were permitted under many of our cases governing transactions made before the opinion in the Hare case became final. The present case is controlled by our holding in the recent case of Crisco v. Murdock Acceptance Corporation, 222 Ark. 127, 258 S. W. 2d 551, which case we reaffirmed in Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation v. Crossley, 222 Ark. 200, 258 S. W. 2d 562.\nAccordingly 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": [
      "M. P. Matheney and Wright, Harrison, Lindsey <& Upton, for appellant.",
      "Stein & Stein, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Universal C. I. T. Credit Corporation v. Hall.\n5-678\n279 S. W. 2d 281\nOpinion delivered May 23, 1955.\nM. P. Matheney and Wright, Harrison, Lindsey <& Upton, for appellant.\nStein & Stein, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0078-01",
  "first_page_order": 100,
  "last_page_order": 102
}