L. B. VARN, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
SAMUEL H. WHITE, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a judgment on a promissory note, holding that semi-annual interest payments at the maximum legal rate do not constitute usury. The court also upheld the award of an attorney's fee, assuming sufficient evidence was presented at trial.
No, charging ten percent annual interest payable semi-annually does not constitute usury. Yes, an attorney's fee awarded by a jury is presumed to be supported by sufficient evidence in the absence of a bill of exceptions.
“In line with practically all other courts, we have held that this does not constitute usury.”
Reasoning for rejecting the usury defense.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff sued on a promissory note that included principal, interest at ten percent per annum payable semi-annually, and an attorney's fee. The d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Usury cases and more on FLexlaw
Cockrell, J.
This is an action on a promissory note for principal, interest and an attorney’s fee.
The notes call for ten per cent interest per annum, payable semi-annually. Yarn sought to plead usury as a partial defense, upon the theory that making the ten per cent inlerest the maximum allowed by the law, payable semiannually, offended the statute. In line with practically all other courts, we have held that this does not constitute usury. See Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046, 43 South. Rep. 512; Meyer v. City of Muscatine, 1 Wall. (U. S.) 384; Mowry v. Bishop, 5 Paige Ch. (N. Y.) 98; Monnet v. Sturges, 25 Ohio St. 384.
The declaration clearly demanded an attorney’s fee, and as there was a trial before a jury, with both parties present, we must assume in the absence of a bill of exceptions that there was sufficient evidence upon which the amount of this fee was fixed so as to support the finding of the total amount then due, as fixed by the verdict.
This case is wholly unlike that of Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30, 29 South. Rep. 633, where an endorser without notice of the dishonor of the note was sought to be held for an attorney’s fee.
Judgment affirmed.
Shackleford, C. J., and Taylor, Hocker and Whitfield, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hotel Mgmt. Co. v. Krickl, 117 Fla. 626 (Fla. 1934)
- Graham v. Fitts, 53 Fla. 1046 (Fla. 1907)
- Robinson v. Aird, 43 Fla. 30 (Fla. 1901)