Court Opinion

ID: 3834424
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-06 08:04:17.112726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:14.824219
License: Public Domain

It is asserted by the defendants in error in their petition for rehearing filed herein that section 1005, Rev. Laws 1910, has no application to the remedy or to their rights in the instant case, inasmuch as the indebtedness involved was created prior to the adoption of the Constitution and prior to the enactment of section 1005, Rev. Laws 1910. It would seem that this court, in the case of Walker v. Daharsh et al.,52 Okla. 766, 153 P. 880, has decided this question adversely to such contention. The syllabus of that case reads: "An usurious contract was entered into prior to the passage of section 1005, Rev. Laws 1910. Subsequent to the adoption of that section, the debt was renewed, and the usurious interest was carried into the renewal note. Held, that the defendant was entitled to a forfeiture of twice the amount of usurious interest which the note carried with it or which was agreed to be paid thereon."
The record shows that the usurious contract in the instant case was entered into prior to the enactment of section 1005, but a part of the debt evidenced by the contract was carried forward and included in the note in suit, which bears date of July 1, 1910, subsequent to the time of the taking effect of section 1005. Therefore Walker v. Daharsh et al., supra, is controlling, and Section 1005 is applicable to the instant case.
The former opinion filed herein is adhered to, and the petition for rehearing denied.