Court Opinion

ID: 9831724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:19:07.698998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.359663
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
Appellants earnestly and ably contend in their motion for rehearing that they have shown a cause of action upon their charge of usury, again citing a number of cases to support their contention. The decision most strongly relied upon by appellants is that in the case of Shropshire v. Commerce Farm Credit Co., 280 S. W. 181, by Section A of the Commission of Appeals. Even that decision, however, is not in point here, for there the contract was held to be usurious upon some sort of theory, which we do not pretend to comprehend, that the contractual annual rate of interest was 12 per cent., which theory, if rational, rendered the contract illegal, of course. The opinion of the Commission of Appeals in that case was adopted by the Supreme Court in February, 1926, was published, and still reposes in the books as the law of the case. But it appears from the briefs of the parties in this case that the opinion of the Commission was set aside by the Supreme Court, which now has the whole case under consideration for direct determination. We hazard no diagnosis of the opinion of the Commission in that case, but if it did support appellants’ position in this case, it lost the force of authority when it reached the discard.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.