Odell v. Commerce Farm Credit Co.

80 S.W.2d 295, 124 Tex. 538, 1935 Tex. LEXIS 256
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 27, 1935
DocketNo. 6721
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 80 S.W.2d 295 (Odell v. Commerce Farm Credit Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Odell v. Commerce Farm Credit Co., 80 S.W.2d 295, 124 Tex. 538, 1935 Tex. LEXIS 256 (Tex. 1935).

Opinion

Mr. Judge SMEDLEY

delivered the opinion of the Commission of Appeals.

The controlling question in this case is whether the contract evidenced by notes and deeds of trust executed by plaintiffs in error was a contract for usury.

The action brought and tried is for the title and possession of the land described in the deeds of trust, following its purchase by defendant in error, Commerce Trust Company, at trustee’s sale. The trial court’s judgment in favor of said defendant in error was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 67 S. W. (2d) 626.

The first contention made by plaintiffs in error is that the contract was tainted with usury, that, therefore, payments of interest were, as a matter of law, applied to the principal and that when they were so applied there was no unpaid principal note past due at the time of the trustee’s sale.

Plaintiffs in error borrowed $8500.00 from Commerce Farm Credit Company executing six principal notes, five for $200.00 each, due annually January 1, 1928, to January 1, 1932, respectively, and one for $7500.00 due January 1, 1937. Attached to [540]*540each principal note were coupon notes payable annually up to the time of the maturity of the principal note and representing interest, at the rate of 5i/í>% per annum. These principal notes and coupons were secured by a first deed of trust. At the same time ten other notes were executed by plaintiffs in error due annually and each representing additional interest on the principal notes at the rate of 1% per annum. These notes were secured by a second deed of trust. All of the notes were transferred to Commerce Trust Company and to its plaintiffs in error paid all of the principal and interest notes as they matured to and including those which became due January 1, 1931. The principal note maturing January 1, 1932, was not paid when due and Commerce Trust Company, because of such default and because of default in the payment by plaintiffs in error of taxes for the years 1930 and 1931, exercised its option, declared the entire principal indebtedness due and caused the trustee’s sale to be made. The payments of interest made were at the rate of 63/2% per annum.

Plaintiffs in error contend that the contract is usurious because it gives to the owner of the notes the option upon default to mature all of the notes, both those for principal and those representing unearned interest, and thus to collect interest at a greater rate than 10%.

Judge Hickman, who wrote the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, carefully reviewed the several instruments constituting the contract and, in our opinion, correctly concluded that they did not contemplate or provide for the collection of unearned interest and that the contract was not usurious.

Each of the principal notes contains the following:

“If this Bond or any installment of interest thereon is not paid when due, the principal of this and all other Bonds forming a part of this series shall become due and collectible at once without notice at the option of the holder. The principal of this Bond from and after its maturity, and all past due interest thereon, shall bear interest at the rate of ten per centum per annum, payable annually, from due date thereof until paid.” (Italics ours.)

The first deed of trust in describing the terms of the principal notes contains the following recital:

“Said bond(s) further provides that if the principal or any installment of interest thereon is not paid when due, then the entire indebtedness shall become due and collectible at once without notice, at the option of the holder.” (Italics ours.)

The said deed of trust contains also the following provisions:

[541]*541“Now, therefore, if default shall be made in the payment of the principal or any installment of interest upon said bond(s) or any part of them when due, and any one of said sums shall remain unpaid, or in the case of the breach of any of the covenants, conditions or agreements herein mentioned or contained in said bond(s), or in any case herein provided, or if any tax assessment mentioned in clause 3 foregoing shall be imposed within the State of Texas, then at the option of the legal holders of said bond(s) the same with interest and all other indebtedness and charges secured hereby shall, without notice, become due and payable, and on the application of the said legal holder or holders, or any of them, the said Trustee, his successor or substitute appointed hereunder is hereby empowered to take possession of said property and to sell the same to the highest bidder. * * *
“The proceeds of said sale shall be applied as follows: First: To the payment of all expenses of advertising, selling and conveying said premises, including attorney’s fees as provided in said bond(s) and a commission to the Trustee making said sale of five (5%) per cent of the indebtedness then due hereunder. Second: To the payment of the indebtedness secured hereby and the balance, if any, shall be paid to grantor(s) or his (her) (their) heirs, assigns or personal representatives.” (Italics ours.)

The second deed of trust securing the notes which represent interest at 1% describes those notes and recites that they are given as a part of the agreed interest on the principal debt secured by the first deed of trust. It contains the following:

“Payments made prior to maturity on the bond(s) or notes secured by said First Deed of Trust shall not entitle the notes secured hereby to any reduction, but it is agreed and understood that if said bond(s) or note(s) is (are) matured by the holder (s) thereof, on account of default in payment of any installment of interest thereon, or in the non-performance of any of the stipulations, conditions or agreements contained in said Deed of Trust, or if matured by operation of law, and foreclosure is had under said First Deed of Trust, the said notes hereby secured shall be cancelled to the extent that they represent unearned interest.
“If the notes secured hereby are paid according to their terms this conveyance shall be void and shall be released at grantor’s expense; but if default be made in the payment of said notes, or any of them, when due, or in the payment of any other indebtedness that may become secured hereby, then, at [542]*542the option and request of the legal holder(s), the said Trustee or his successor hereunder, shall sell said premises, subject to the notes above described which have not then matured, after notice and in the manner prescribed in said First Deed of Trust, and execute and deliver a good and sufficient deed therefor and receive the proceeds of such sale, which shall be applied as follows : First: To the expense of making the sale, including compensation of the trustee; Second: To the payment of the indebtedness hereby secured and then due. Third: To the payment of any delinquent interest, taxes, attorney’s fees, or other sums due under the terms of said First Deed of Trust, and the balance, if any shall be paid to the grantor (s), their heirs or assigns. And such sale shall not be held to exhaust the powers granted to said trustee, or his successor hereunder, but same shall survive and subsequent sales may be had upon such a default so long as any of the indebtedness secured hereby remains unpaid.” (Italics ours.)

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

Related

Theresa Washington-Jarmon v. OneWest Bank, FSB
513 S.W.3d 103 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016)
Carolyn Larsen v. OneWest Bank, FSB
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
Frost National Bank v. Burge
29 S.W.3d 580 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Pentico v. Mad-Wayler, Inc.
964 S.W.2d 708 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Anderson v. Hirsch
112 S.W.2d 535 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1937)
Mortgage Bond Co. of New York v. Moore
96 S.W.2d 91 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Volunteer State Life Ins. Co. v. Lynch
94 S.W.2d 846 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1936)
Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
89 S.W.2d 1106 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. v. Bain
80 F.2d 886 (Fifth Circuit, 1935)
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Anderson
89 S.W.2d 428 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Southland Life Insurance v. Egan
86 S.W.2d 722 (Texas Supreme Court, 1935)
Wellfare v. Realty Trust Co.
85 S.W.2d 1067 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Southwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Stanley
84 S.W.2d 1084 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Southern States Mortgage Co. v. Lykes
85 S.W.2d 780 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
D. H. Scott & Son v. Wallace
83 S.W.2d 1032 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)
Zapalac v. Travelers Ins. Co.
84 S.W.2d 818 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 S.W.2d 295, 124 Tex. 538, 1935 Tex. LEXIS 256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/odell-v-commerce-farm-credit-co-tex-1935.