200 UNIVERSAL C. I. T. CREDIT CORP. V. CROSSLEY. [222 UNIVERSAL C. I. T. CREDIT CORPORATION V. CROSSLEY. 5-68 258 S. W. 2d 562 Opinion delivered May 25, 1953. Rehearing denied June 22, 1953. USURY.—Although there were some items in appellee's contract for the purchase of an automobile on deferred payments indicative of usury, the transaction occurred before the decision in the Hare case became final, and it was error to hold the contract to be usurious. Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court, First Division ; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor ; reversed. Wright, Harrison, Lindsey & Upton. and Cockrill, Limerick & Laser, for appellant. Josh W. McHughes, Brooks Bradley and Tilghman E. Dixon, for appellee.
ARK.] UNIVERSAL C. I. T. CREDIT CORP. V. CROSSLEY, 201 ED. F. MCFADDIN, Justice. This is another case' in which usury is pleaded against a conditional sales contract. The transaction here involved occurred prior to the date the opinion in the Hare case' became final. In purchasing an automobile, appellee Crossley signed a conditional sales contract, which reads in part : "Payable in cash or trade-in before delivery $232.80 Leaving Time Balance of 853.65 Payable . . . in 21 successive monthly installments 40.65" After our opinion in the Hare case, Crossley brought this suit to have his contract declared usurious. The Trial Court agreed with Crossley, and Universal C. I. T. has appealed. The fact remains that some of the items charged against Crossley—which would be indicia of usury under the Hare case—are items permitted under cases' governing transactions entered into before the opinion in the Hare case became final. The present case is in all respects ruled by our opinion in Crisco v. Mur-dock, 222 Ark. 127, 258 S. W. 2d 551. Therefore, the decree of the Trial Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. Mr. Justice WARD concurs. I Some other recent cases, similar to this one, are : Murdock v. Higgins, 222 Ark. 140, 258 S. W. 2d 559 ; Aunspaugh V. Murdock, 222 Ark. 141, 258 S. W. 2d 559 ; Crisco V. Murdock, 222 Ark. 127, 258 S. W. 2d 551 ; Kensinger V. Tippet, 222 Ark. 199, 258 S. W. 2d 561 ; and Perry V. Duncan, 222 Ark. 160, 258 S. W. 2d 560. 2 The "Hare case" is Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp., 220 Ark. 601, 249 S. W. 2d 973. The opinion in the Hare case was delivered on May 26, 1952, and the petition for rehearing was denied on June 30, 1952. 3 Some such cases are Cheairs v. McDermott, 175 Ark. 1126, 2 S. W. 2d 1111; General Contract v. Holland, 196 Ark. 675, 119 S. W. 2d 535; Harper V. Futrell, 204 Ark. 822, 164 S. W. 2d 995, 143 A. L. R. 235; and Garst V. General Contract, 211 Ark. 526, 201 S. W. 2d 757.
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.