Case Name: ARMSTRONG et al. v. CONTINENTAL NAT. BANK
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1931-12-11
Citations: 44 S.W.2d 1111
Docket Number: No. 4117
Parties: ARMSTRONG et al. v. CONTINENTAL NAT. BANK.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 44
Pages: 1111–1112

Head Matter:
ARMSTRONG et al. v. CONTINENTAL NAT. BANK.
No. 4117.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.
Dec. 11, 1931.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 7, 1932.
Geo. W. Armstrong and R. C. Armstrong, Jr., both of Fort Worth, for appellants.
R. M. Rowland, W. P. McLean, Sr., Leroy A. Smith, all of Fort Worth, and Luther Nickels, of Dallas, for appellee.

Opinion:
WILLSON, C. J.
(after stating the case as above).
This case on its merits is in all material respects like Armstrong v. City National Bank of Galveston (Tex. Civ. App.) 16 S.W.(2d) 954. We think a finding that the note sued upon was for usurious interest (within the meaning of section 86, title 12, USCA) paid on the other two notes referred to in the statement above was not warranted by the evidence, and that the trial court properly could not have rendered a judgment different from the one he did render. In that view of the record, it is unnecessary to inquire whether rulings of the trial court complained of were erroneous or not.
The judgment is affirmed.