Hopkins v. Otto
Kate Holmes Hopkins, as Executrix, v. Annie Otto, Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
This appeal is from a decree dismissing a suit to enforce a mortgage lien, the note and mortgage being for $1,500.00 due in three years with interest at 8% per annum payable semi-annually. Usury was a defense. A commission of $75.00 was paid from the amount of the note to an employee in the lender’s office which the Chancellor in effect held was in the nature of a bonus to the lender. Only $1,425.00 was received by the borrower, even if the lender should not have paid a charge of $30.00 for title insurance on the mortgaged property.' Foreclosure was begun at the end of two years under the acceleration provision of the mortgage.
Without the charge of $30.00 for title insurance on the *866 mortgaged property, the $75.00 bonus reserved together with the interest charged rendered the loan usurious.
In Wilson v. Connor, 106 Fla. 6 , 142 So. 606 , the first year’s interest and the bonus were both reserved when the loan was made.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur.
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 7 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.