Sophy Whitman v. Eva Ruth Green, Administratrix of the Estate of Walter Frank Green, Deceased, Etc.

This diversity action places in issue the proper construction of Idaho’s conflict of laws rule with regard to usury.

Appellant brought suit for judgment upon a promissory note and for foreclosure of a mortgage given as security. The district court ruled, on summary judgment, that under Idaho law the note calling for interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum was usurious, with the result that twice the total amount of interest was forfeited. In this case a principal balance in the sum of $3,900 was found due. From this twice the amount of interest, or $2,267.06, was deducted and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $1,-632.94.

The plaintiff has taken this appeal, asserting that judgment in her favor was inadequate. She contends that Washington rather than Idaho law applies. Twelve per cent interest is legal in the State of Washington. The question for our determination therefore is whether the district court was in error in holding that the Idaho rule on conflict of laws under the facts of this case holds the local, law of Idaho rather than that of Washington to be controlling.

Appellant resides in Washington. A mortgage broker approached her on…