Court Opinion

ID: 9648540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:25:49.812543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:02.658991
License: Public Domain

Ed. F. MoFaddin, Justice (concurring on rehearing). T dissented from the Majority’s original opinion, because I did not favor overruling Justice Battle’s holding in Hiner v. Whitlow. Now, I concur with the result reached by the Majority on rehearing; and I write this concurring opinion to emphasize that NOW all reference to Hiner v. Whitlow in the majority’s original opinion is dicta and nothing but dicta. By the rehearing opinion the Majority is holding that the contract here involved is not usurious because the contract is governed by the law of Tennessee. Such holding leaves as dicta all the language in the original majority opinion in regard to the Iliner case; and such dicta is not, in my way of thinking, sufficient to overrule the holding of Justice Battle in Hiner v. Whitlow.