Introduction
G.S Adam Junior and Bruce B. Bickham met on the 23rd day of January 1974 and struck a deal for Bickham to transact all his businesses with the bank while in return the bank was to;
a) Immediately stop charging service charges on Bickham’s demand deposit accounts effective January 24th 1974
b) Lend money to Bickham and his corporations at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum
c) Give Bickham and his corporations loans of a maximum of $500,000.00
d) Grant Mr. Bickham a ten year loan amortization period in which Mr. Bickham would make loan repayment with no restrictions on prepayment of any loans.
e) Give Mr. Bickham a loan to build his home at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum
What both sides intend to prove
From January 25, 1974, to …show more content…
Bickham had struck the agreement with resigned from the bank. Following this development, the bank notified Mr. Bickham that general economic changes had made it necessary to charge a higher rate of interest on both outstanding and new loans that had been advanced or would be advance to him and his corporations. Mr. Bickham was notified in writing that, his interest rates would be elevated to 9.5 percent per annum from the initially agreed 7.5 percent per annum. Mr. Bickham protested this increase and in addition to oral protest to the increased interest rate, Bickham refused to sign the bank form consenting to an interest rate increase. Mr. Bickham filed a suit against Washington Bank and Trust Co. for breach of …show more content…
This means that the ruling does not recover voluntary payments made by a party simply because the party paid under protest.
In relation to this ruling, Mr. Bickham ought to have sought judicial relief before paying the excess interest accrued from the higher interest rates levied. This could have resulted into prompt disposition of issues surrounding the matter.
In relation to the case involving New Orleans & N.E.R Co. Vs Louisiana Construction and improvement Co. while also referring to other cases, the Supreme Court deemed the case of Mr. Bickham Vs the Bank a plain case in which the plaintiff (Mr. Bickham) makes payments unjustly levied on him to the bank voluntarily with full facts and thereafter seeks to recover the money. The court noted that the plaintiff cannot recover the money unless there was fraud in the event of the transaction. Mr. Bickham had the opportunity in the first instance to claim at law by litigating the question or by choosing to submit to the demand and make the payments with the full knowledge of the unjust claims to which he was not entitled to any refund by the
G.S Adam Junior and Bruce B. Bickham met on the 23rd day of January 1974 and struck a deal for Bickham to transact all his businesses with the bank while in return the bank was to;
a) Immediately stop charging service charges on Bickham’s demand deposit accounts effective January 24th 1974
b) Lend money to Bickham and his corporations at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum
c) Give Bickham and his corporations loans of a maximum of $500,000.00
d) Grant Mr. Bickham a ten year loan amortization period in which Mr. Bickham would make loan repayment with no restrictions on prepayment of any loans.
e) Give Mr. Bickham a loan to build his home at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum
What both sides intend to prove
From January 25, 1974, to …show more content…
Bickham had struck the agreement with resigned from the bank. Following this development, the bank notified Mr. Bickham that general economic changes had made it necessary to charge a higher rate of interest on both outstanding and new loans that had been advanced or would be advance to him and his corporations. Mr. Bickham was notified in writing that, his interest rates would be elevated to 9.5 percent per annum from the initially agreed 7.5 percent per annum. Mr. Bickham protested this increase and in addition to oral protest to the increased interest rate, Bickham refused to sign the bank form consenting to an interest rate increase. Mr. Bickham filed a suit against Washington Bank and Trust Co. for breach of …show more content…
This means that the ruling does not recover voluntary payments made by a party simply because the party paid under protest.
In relation to this ruling, Mr. Bickham ought to have sought judicial relief before paying the excess interest accrued from the higher interest rates levied. This could have resulted into prompt disposition of issues surrounding the matter.
In relation to the case involving New Orleans & N.E.R Co. Vs Louisiana Construction and improvement Co. while also referring to other cases, the Supreme Court deemed the case of Mr. Bickham Vs the Bank a plain case in which the plaintiff (Mr. Bickham) makes payments unjustly levied on him to the bank voluntarily with full facts and thereafter seeks to recover the money. The court noted that the plaintiff cannot recover the money unless there was fraud in the event of the transaction. Mr. Bickham had the opportunity in the first instance to claim at law by litigating the question or by choosing to submit to the demand and make the payments with the full knowledge of the unjust claims to which he was not entitled to any refund by the