Case Name: MARTIN et al. v. TEMPLE TRUST CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1933-04-19
Citations: 67 S.W.2d 429
Docket Number: Motion No. 7524; No. 7826
Parties: MARTIN et al. v. TEMPLE TRUST CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 67
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
MARTIN et al. v. TEMPLE TRUST CO.
Motion No. 7524; No. 7826.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.
April 19, 1933.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1934.
• Dibrell & Starnes, of Coleman, for appellants.
J. B. Daniel, of Temple, and Critz & Woodward, of Coleman, for appellee.

Opinion:
BAUGH, Justice.
This suit involves the same character of transaction as that involved in the case of M. L. Walker et al. v. Temple Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 826, this'day decided, except as to parties, amounts, and due dates. In tliis case the loan was made to J. M. Martin in April, 1927. In January, 1929, Martin and wife sold and conveyed the land involved to J. H. Shannon, who, as part consideration therefor, assumed the payment of the unma-tured portion of said loan; and in March, 1929, Shannon sold and conveyed the land to M. L. Walker, who as part consideration therefor assumed the payment of' the unma-tured portion of the principal of said loan recited to he $3,250, with interest thereon provided for in said notes from November 1,1928. This suit is against Martin and Walker for the balance due on said notes and for foreclosure of the deed of trust liens securing their payment, with remission and cancellation of, all future unearned interest both on the principal notes and on the interest note.
The judgment, for the reasons stated in the Walker Case, is affirmed on the ground that the loan should riot be constriied' as usurious in any event. And, even if it should- be so construed, the appellant Walker could not recover what he had paid thereunder, because he expressly assumed the payment of a stipulated, amount named in the conveyance to him, thereby precluding any right in him to assert usury, if any, in the original loan. See Jesse E. Moore v. Temple Trust Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 60 S.W.(2d) 828, this day decided, and authorities there pited.
For the reasons stated in the above-cited cases, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.-