Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 10 May 1901
• Citation: 63 S.W. 1071
• Parties: INTERSTATE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. CRAWFORD et al.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

63 S.W. 1071

INTERSTATE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N v. CRAWFORD et al.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

May 10, 1901.

Appeal from district court, Anderson county; A. D. Lipscomb, Judge.

Suit by J. W. Crawford and others against the Interstate Building & Loan Association to cancel a mortgage. From a decree in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Edgar Watkins and Frank C. Jones, for appellant. Thos. B. Greenwood, for appellees.

PLEASANTS, J.

Appellees brought this suit to cancel a lien held by appellant upon premises owned by appellees, and situate in Anderson county. The petition alleges that appellee W. J. Crawford borrowed from appellant the sum of $700, which amount was to be repaid by monthly payments of $5.39 on seven shares of stock issued to him by the appellant association, $2.31 as premium, and $3.50 as interest,—such payments to continue until the maturity of said stock, or until 96 payments had been made; that, to evidence and secure said indebtedness, the bond and deed of trust described in the petition and sought to be canceled were executed; that the designation of said payment of $5.39 as a payment on stock was fraudulent, and designed and intended to disguise usurious interest, and that the bond was made payable in the state of Georgia to avoid the laws of the state of Texas. The petition further alleged that the plaintiffs had repaid to appellant the $700 principal of said loan, and prayed that the debt be declared satisfied, and that said bond and trust deed be canceled. Appellant's answer contains general and special exceptions, general denial, pleas of limitation and estoppel, and by cross bill sought to enforce said bond and lien for the balance shown to be due thereon. Appellees answered the cross bill with a general denial, and with special pleas of usury and payment. The court below submitted special issues to the jury, and in response thereto the jury found that the stock subscription was a device to disguise a usurious contract, and that the bond was made payable in the state of Georgia for the purpose of evading the laws of the state of Texas. Upon these findings judgment was rendered in favor of appellees, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.

We shall express no opinion upon the facts in this case further than to say that the evidence raised the issue as to whether or not the issue of stock to the appellees was a bona fide purchase and sale of stock, or merely a scheme to evade the law against usury. In submitting this issue to the jury, the court uses the following language: "If you find that plaintiffs' subscription to stock was made in good faith, with a view to probable profits from its increase in value, or with a view to other substantial...