Page:Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp., 220 Ark. 601 (1952).pdf/1

Rh v.

4-9723

Opinion delivered May 26, 1952.

Rehearing denied June 30, 1952.


 * 1) A note usurious in the hands of the payee is usurious in the hands of a subsequent purchaser, though he purchased in good faith, before maturity of the note and without notice of the usury.
 * 2) The Constitution (Art. 19, § 13) makes a usurious note void, and it can gain no validity by circulation.
 * 3) The defense of bona fide holder, for value, without notice is without merit against a plea of usury.
 * 4) A sale of a motor truck by M to appellant for $1,750 on which was paid $600 leaving a balance of $1,150 to which enough was added for insurance, interest and service charges to make the total price $2,039.13 appellee's contention that this was the credit price of the truck is without merit, since there is nothing in the record to show that the rule of a bona fide credit price is applicable.
 * 5) While former decisions which have become a rule of property will not be overruled retrospectively, the public is now given a caveat that the question whether a "time price differential" is permissible against a plea of usury may be reëxamined to determine whether it infringes on the constitutional mandate against usury.
 * 6) While the seller may, in a bona fide transaction, increase the price to compensate for the risk involved in making a sale on credit, there may be a question of fact as to whether the so-called credit price was bona fide or only a cloak for usury.