Richbart

I concur in the judgment. I do not agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice York wherein he sustains the contention of respondents that the note on which defendants were sued as guarantors was an usurious contract in violation of the Usury Law. The lapse of a reasonable time in completing a loan and paying over the money after the time the papers are dated does not render the loan usurious, where the parties act in good faith and with no intent to evade the usury laws. (Matthews v. Georgia State Sav. Assn., 132 Ark. 219 [ 200 S. W. 130 , 21 A. L. R. 789].)

Delay in paying proceeds of loan to borrower if in good faith does not render transaction usurious. (McDougall v. Hachmeister, 184 Ark. 28 [ 41 S. W. (2d) 1088 , 76 A. L. R. 1463], and note.)

But I think that there was no contract of guaranty and therefore that there is no cause of action against respondents. Upon apparently sufficient evidence the court found that the defendants Ullman and Williams signed the instrument of guaranty in reliance upon certain escrow instructions wherein it appeared that the signature of Mrs. Harry Sebastian would be affixed thereto; that the defendants Ullman and Williams did not know at the time…

This is an appeal by plaintiff from a judgment in favor of defendants, who were the guarantors of a promissory note for $25,000 payable to plaintiff, maturing five years after its date—March 5, 1928—bearing interest at twelve per cent per annum and secured by a deed of trust.

As against defendant M. H. Horton, the appeal has been dismissed, by reason of his discharge as a bankrupt.

The loan was handled through an escrow held by American Safe Deposit Company, the parties to the escrow being plaintiff and the corporate maker of the note, Theatrical Enterprises, Inc., the latter not being named a party defendant in the suit. The escrow instructions providing, among other things, that plaintiff handed the escrow-holder his check for $25,000 payable to Theatrical Enterprises, Inc., but that it was not to present the check for payment until it held for the account of plaintiff a deed of trust covering four parcels of real property and the note secured thereby, together with a guarantee of title showing the trust deed a prior encumbrance upon the property. The instructions were dated March 5, 1928, and it was provided that they were not to run longer than a period of ten days from…