Court Opinion

ID: 9675198
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:44:40.171747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:32.296422
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.
Appellant asserts on motion for rehearing that we erred in affirming the judgment of the trial court which provided for forfeiture of the principal sum of the note since the interest charged was in excess of double the amount of interest allowed 1 because Article 1302-2.09, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. (Supp.1972), prohibits the claim or defense of usury to be made by a corporation if a rate of interest not to exceed one *283and one-half per cent (1½%) per month was agreed to by said corporation. Such assignment of error is not briefed.
This contention was not raised in the trial court or in this Court prior to said motion for rehearing and, therefore, comes too late for consideration. Saldana v. Garcia, 155 Tex. 242, 285 S.W.2d 197 (1956); W. T. Burton Company, Inc. v. Keown Contracting Company, 353 S.W.2d 909 (Tex.Civ.App. — Beaumont 1962, writ ref.’d n. r. e.); Brewster v. Union State Bank, 347 S.W.2d 634 (Tex.Civ.App. — San Antonio 1961, no writ) ; Harris v. Cleveland, 294 S.W.2d 235 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston 1956, writ dism’d); Aycock v. Travis County, 255 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Civ.App.- — Austin 1953, writ ref’d). It necessarily follows that we express no opinion regarding the application of Article 1302-2.09, supra, to the Title 79, Interest, Revised Civil Statutes, as enacted by Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 609, Ch. 274.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.

. See Article 5069-1.06, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St.