Weatherly v. Bristow

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Weatherly v. Bristow

1916 OK 277, 164 P. 979, 56 Okla. 469, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 730

Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided March 7, 1916·No. 6096·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

It is contended that a written demand for the return of usury, as condition precedent to the commencement of an action under section 1005, Rev. Laws 1910, should be for the return of the amount of interest received in excess of the legal rate, and *470 not for the whole interest received. Subsequent to the filing of briefs, the case of Ardmore State Bank v. E. H. Thompson, 57 Okla. —, 164 Pac. 977, w|as decided adversely to this contention.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

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

Opinion by

RITTENHOUSE, C.

It is contended that a written demand for the return of usury, as condition precedent to the commencement of an action under section 1005, Rev. Laws 1910, should be for the return of the amount of interest received in excess of the legal rate, and *470 not for the whole interest received. Subsequent to the filing of briefs, the case of Ardmore State Bank v. E. H. Thompson, 57 Okla. —, 164 Pac. 977, w|as decided adversely to this contention.

The judgment should therefore be affirmed.

By the Court: It is so ordered.

Weatherly v. Bristow, 1916 OK 277, 164 P. 979, 56 Okla. 469, 1916 Okla. LEXIS 730 (Okla. 1916).

Pincite

1916 OK 277 (Weatherly v. Bristow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related