Court Opinion

ID: 9777912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:27:55.983533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:02.452870
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Johnson argues that his Exhibit 3, a statement he sent to Broady showing the amounts claimed to be owing, can be construed as showing that the rate of interest he charged was less than that to which Broady testified, and so the evidence was not conclusive that Subparagraph 2 of the statute was applicable. Assuming arguen-do that the exhibit can be so construed and its import is accepted as true, the exhibit still shows without question that the interest charged was well in excess of 12%, so Subparagraph 2 would be applicable in any event.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.