Court Opinion

ID: 9827363
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:27:03.943893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:49.688731
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
After Moore had assumed McLar-ry’s note as part of the consideration for the sale of the property to him by McLar-ry and especially after plaintiff, the payee of the note, had accepted that contract of assumption and Moore had made partial payments thereon, McLarry and Moore could not impair that obligation by McLar-ry’s assignment to Moore of the right to plead usury to the note which Moore had assumed. Hill v. Hoeldtke, 104 Tex. 594, 142 S. W. 871, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 672, and authorities there cited.
Upon further consideration of the authorities,1 we are convinced that we did not err in any of the conclusions reached pn original hearing and, accordingly, the motion for rehearing is overruled. \