Hopkins v. Crittenden
| Decision Date | 01 January 1853 |
| Citation | 10 Tex. 189 |
| Parties | HOPKINS v. CRITTENDEN. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Conventional interest does not give place to “legal” interest at the maturity of the contract, but continues to run until payment.
Error from Red River. This suit was brought upon a promissory note, dated January 15th, 1849, and payable on the 25th day of December thereafter, “with ten per cent. interest from date.” In the rendition of the judgment at the May term, 1851, interest was computed at ten per cent. from the date of the note up to that time.
Morrill & Dickson, for plaintiff in error.
Young & Morgan, for defendant in error.
It is objected that interest at ten per cent. was allowed after the maturity of the note; whereas, it is insisted that eight per cent. only was recoverable after that period. The statute fixes the legal rate of interest at eight per cent., and authorizes the recovery of that rate of interest “on all written contracts ascertaining the sum due, when no specific premium or rate of interest is expressed.” (Dig., art. 1607.) But here a specific rate of interest is expressed in the contract. It does not, therefore, come within the provision fixing the legal rate of interest, but is clearly within that which authorizes the recovery of any rate of interest for which the parties may contract, not exceeding twelve per cent. (Id., 1608.)
It doubtless was the intention of the parties to contract for ten per cent. interest upon the debt until paid, and there can be as little doubt that it was the intention of the Legislature to authorize the making and enforcing of such a contract. The interest was computed according to the universally received construction of the statute, and the uniform practice of the court under it from its adoption to the present time, and with what appears to be its plain meaning and intention. We entertain no doubt of the correctness of the rule of computation adopted, and are of opinion that the judgment be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borders v. Barber
...71; Beckwith v. Trustees, 29 Conn. 269; 33 Conn. 431; Overton v. Bolton, 9 Heisk. (Tenn.) 762; Pridgen v. Andrews, 7 Tex. 461; Hopkins v. Crittenden, 10 Tex. 189; Cox v. Smith, 1 Nev. 171; Spencer v. Maxfield, 16 Wis. 178; Pruyn v. Milwaukee, 18 Wis. 367; Etnyre v. McDaniel, 28 Ill. 201; Ki......
-
Greenhaw v. Holmes
...Iron Works v. Lottimer, 25 Ohio St. 621; McLane v. Abrams, 2 Nev. 199; Phinney v. Baldwin, 16 Ill. 108, 61 Am. Dec. 62; Hopkins v. Crittenden, 10 Tex. 189; Spencer v. Maxfield, 16 Wis. 185; Borders Barber, 81 Mo. 636; Warner v. Juif, 38 Mich. 662; Kellogg v. Lavender, 15 Neb. 256, 48 Am. Re......
-
Union Institution for Savings v. City of Boston
...Kilgore v. Powers, 5 Blackf. 22. Kohler v. Smith, 2 Cal. 597. Guy v. Franklin, 5 Cal. 416. Corcoran v. Doll, 32 Cal. 82. Hopkins v. Crittenden, 10 Tex. 189. Wilson v. Marsh, 2 Beasley Phinney v. Baldwin, 16 Ill. 108. Etnyre v. McDaniel, 28 Ill. 201. Heartt v. Rhodes, 66 Ill. 351. Spencer v.......
-
Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Long
...(1971) of the Code concerning post maturity, prejudgment interest. The following authorities support appellant's position: Hopkins v. Crittenden, 10 Tex. 189 (1853); Roberts v. Smith, 64 Tex. 94, 97 (1885); Linz v. Eastland County, 39 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.Comm.App.1931, holding approved); see al......