This case involves the question of usury. On September 26, 1951, which was prior to the decision in Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corporation,
On August 28,1952, Tinsley filed this suit alleging a usurious rate of interest had been charged, and asked that the note given as part of the purchase price for the automobile be declared null and void. The chancellor held the transaction to be usurious and that the note given as part of the purchase price was therefore void.
As heretofore stated, the sale of the automobile and the execution of the note were completed prior to the date the decision in the Hare case became final. The material facts in the case at bar are essentially the same as the facts in Crisco v. Murdock Acceptance Corporation,
Reversed with directions to enter a decree not inconsistent herewith.
