Matlock v. Cobb
Matlock v. Cobb
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
There is nothing in the record indicating that the sale by the trustee, Powell, was made for the purpose of enabling the creditor, Cobb, to evade the usury laws by reconveying the property bought at such sale to the debtor. If this had been shown, the law, looking to the substance and not to the form of the transaction, would treat the money paid by the debtor as paid on the note and sustain his right to recover the usury. But the evidence shows that at the time of this sale there was no such collusion between the parties; on the contrary, they were antagonistic to each other. Cobb, having purchased the property at a sum not gre.ater than the balance of the principal due on his note, had the right to convey it to the appellant or to any other person at any price. The fact that he did convey it to him who had once been his debtor, but whose
The judgment is affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- J. A. Matlock v. E. S. Cobb
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Usury. Whether payment usurious or not. Casein judgment. M. & M. borrowed a certain sum of money from C., and gave him their note promising to pay usurious interest therefor, and executed a deed of trust on a certain tract of land to secure payment of the note. Upon the failure of the maker to pay the note at maturity, the trustee sold the land under the trust deed, and it was bought by the payee of the note, who subsequently deeded it to the grantor in the deed of trust for a consideration equal in amount to the principal of the note with the usurious interest originally contracted for. Afterward M. & M. sued C. for the difference between the consideration of the deed of reconveyance and the amount which C. might have legally collected on the note, claiming that such difference represented the usurious interest on the money borrowed and repaid. The evidence showed no collusion between the parties to evade the usury laws by the trustee’s sale, but the contrary. Held, that in this state of case there can be no recovery, as O. had the right to sell and convey the land to M. & M., as well as to any other person, for any price he could get, but if there had been such collusion as is above alluded to, the case would be different.