Noble v. First State Bank of Bishop

Court of Appeals of Texas

Noble v. First State Bank of Bishop

69 S.W.2d 1114

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 24, 1934

DocketNo. 9235.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 69 S.W.2d 1114 (Noble v. First State Bank of Bishop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Noble v. First State Bank of Bishop, 69 S.W.2d 1114 (Tex. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinions

This suit was instituted by plaintiff in error, hereinafter named plaintiff, for the sum of $132, alleged to be for usurious interest paid by plaintiff to defendant in error, hereinafter called defendant. The cause was submitted to the justice of the peace and judgment rendered against plaintiff in favor of defendant. On appeal to the county court, the cause was submitted to a jury on special issues, and on the responses thereto judgment was rendered that plaintiff take nothing and pay all costs. A writ of error has been prosecuted to this court.

In response to the issues submitted, the jury answered that plaintiff paid defendant $33 interest on January 6, 1928, and that he did not pay any interest on August 11, 1928, as claimed by him. It was in evidence that plaintiff borrowed $363 from defendant, and was required to give a note for $363. The sum of $363 was deposited by plaintiff in the bank in January, at the time it was paid over to him by defendant, as was evidenced by a deposit slip in his name. On August 11, 1928, plaintiff gave a check for the amount of the note, $363, being the money which he had received from defendant. No interest was requested or given at that time. There is no evidence that plaintiff paid to defendant any interest except the $33 paid in advance.

The interest in this case, $33, was paid on January 6, 1928, and the suit for the interest was instituted on June 30, 1930, more than two years after the payment of the interest claimed to be usurious. The amount of interest paid was considerably in excess of interest which could have been legally claimed on the amount of the debt on its due date, at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum; however, under the statutes providing for the recovery of the penalty for exacting usurious interest, it is provided that the claim for such usurious interest shall be barred in two years from the time of its receipt or collection. Article 5073, R.S. 1925. The claim for the usurious interest was clearly barred by limitation under the provisions of the statute, and, being pleaded, the court did not err in rendering judgment in favor of defendant in error.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

This suit was instituted by plaintiff in error, hereinafter named plaintiff, for the sum of $132, alleged to be for usurious interest paid by plaintiff to defendant in error, hereinafter called defendant. The cause was submitted to the justice of the peace and judgment rendered against plaintiff in favor of defendant. On appeal to the county court, the cause was submitted to a jury on special issues, and on the responses thereto judgment was rendered that plaintiff take nothing and pay all costs. A writ of error has been prosecuted to this court.

In response to the issues submitted, the jury answered that plaintiff paid defendant $33 interest on January 6, 1928, and that he did not pay any interest on August 11, 1928, as claimed by him. It was in evidence that plaintiff borrowed $363 from defendant, and was required to give a note for $363. The sum of $363 was deposited by plaintiff in the bank in January, at the time it was paid over to him by defendant, as was evidenced by a deposit slip in his name. On August 11, 1928, plaintiff gave a check for the amount of the note, $363, being the money which he had received from defendant. No interest was requested or given at that time. There is no evidence that plaintiff paid to defendant any interest except the $33 paid in advance.

The interest in this case, $33, was paid on January 6, 1928, and the suit for the interest was instituted on June 30, 1930, more than two years after the payment of the interest claimed to be usurious. The amount of interest paid was considerably in excess of interest which could have been legally claimed on the amount of the debt on its due date, at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum; however, under the statutes providing for the recovery of the penalty for exacting usurious interest, it is provided that the claim for such usurious interest shall be barred in two years from the time of its receipt or collection. Article 5073, R.S. 1925. The claim for the usurious interest was clearly barred by limitation under the provisions of the statute, and, being pleaded, the court did not err in rendering judgment in favor of defendant in error.

The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 S.W.2d 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/noble-v-first-state-bank-of-bishop-texapp-1934.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack