Court Opinion

ID: 9826955
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 17:00:46.949833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:19.998835
License: Public Domain

BLAIR, Justice.
This is a usury case. The loan contract involved is identical in form and substance with those held to be usurious by this court in the cases of Temple Trust Co. v. Sto-baugh, 59 S.W.2d 916, and Temple Trust Co. v. Haney, Tex.Civ.App., 103 S.W.2d 1035, which cases were expressly approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Temple Trust Co. v. Haney, 107 S.W.2d 368, and in which the motion for rehearing was overruled April 5, 1939.
In the instant case the Temple Trust Company required appellees to execute notes aggregating $4,000, payable over a period of ten years, with interest at seven per cent per annum, payable semiannually; but .advanced only $3,600, deducting ten per cent from the face value of the notes representing the loan contract. Payments aggregating $3,174.64 on the original loan were credited, leaving a balance of $425.56 due. Additional advances were included in renewal notes which were not usurious, and which, together with the balance due on the original loan aggregated $1,085.31, for which amount judgment was rendered for appellant, and which judgment is not contested. The enforcement of the acceleration of payment provisions of the original loan contract would have, under the terms of the loan contract, required the payment of interest on the $3,600 actually advanced at a rate in excess of the ten per cent per annum and the original loan contract was therefore usurious.
The judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
Affirmed.