Puckett v. Fore
Puckett v. Fore
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
1. It appears from the transcript of the evidence introduced on the trial in the court below that the note of $937.69, charged up against appellant in his itemized account with Gad-dis for the year 1890, was the balance due from appellant to Gaddis on his store account for the year 1889, and, for that year, confessedly, Gaddis failed to pay the proper amount of his privilege tax. This item was then uncollectible by reason of the vice which inhered in it, and it has so remained despite
2. The four notes executed on February 18, 1892, for the sums of $770.55, $480, $520, and $560, respectively, are all tainted with usury, and this is plainly manifested by the evidence of Gaddis himself on his examination as a witness on the trial of the case below.
Reversed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Henry Puckett v. George W. Fore
- Cited By
- 3 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Privilege Taxes. Code 1880, § 589. Code 1893, ? 3401. Contracts. Renewals. A note given for a debt contracted in the course of a business liable to a privilege tax, is void (under § 589, code 1880, and § 3401, code 1892, so providing) if the tax be unpaid; and any and all renewals of the debt are void. 2. Replevin. Deed of trust. Illegality. Usury. In an action of replevin by the trustee in a deed of trust given to secure a recited debt, the defendant may show illegality in- a part of the debt and usury in other parts, and is entitled to an appropriation of payments to the valid part of the debt.