476 [280 FIRST STATE BANK OF SPRINGDALE, Arkansas v. Charles W. SHAVER and Darlena SHAVER, Husband and Wife 82-203 659 S.W.2d 504 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered October 31, 1983 APPEAL & ERROR - EFFECT OF UNTIMELY FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL. - Where the notice of appeal is not filed within the statutory time limit provided for in Ark. R. App. P. Rule 4 (a), the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed and the appeal dismissed. Appeal from Washington Chancery Court; John Line-berger, Chancellor; affirmed. Herdlinger, Jacoway & Stanley, by: Roy E. Stanley, for appellant. No 'oriel for appellees. RICHARD B. ADKISSON, Chief Justice. Appellant, First State Bank, junior mortgagee in a foreclosure action against appellees, Charles and Darlena Shaver, sought summary judgment in foreclosure of a business loan of $46,902.57 made September 5, 1980. The Washington County Chancery Court found the loan agreement to be usurious under the governing federal law, section 511 of the Monetary Control Act of 1980 (12 U.S.C. ยง 86a) and ordered, as remedy, all payments made by the Shavers to be credited as principal. Since an examination of the record reflects the appeal is from the original judgment, this case is governed by our per curiam in First State Bank of Springdale v. Shaver, 279 Ark. 30, 648 S. W.2d 453 (1983) in which we held that the notice of appeal was not filed within the statutory time limit provided for in Ark. R. App. P. Rule 4 (a). The judgment of the lower court is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.