Mathews v. Interstate Building & Loan Ass'n.

• Decision Date: 08 March 1899
• Citation: 50 S.W. 604
• Parties: MATHEWS v. INTERSTATE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL>
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

50 S.W. 604

MATHEWS v. INTERSTATE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N.¹

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas.

March 8, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Bexar county; J. L. Camp, Judge.

Action by C. E. Mathews against the Interstate Building & Loan Association. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

James Raley, for appellant. C. A. Keller, for appellee.

JAMES, C. J.

This is an action to recover the penalty of double alleged usurious interest received during the two years preceding this suit by appellee of appellant, under article 3106 of Sayles' Revised Statutes. The district judge directed a verdict for defendant.

It appears that A. M. Mathews, wife of C. E. Mathews, applied to the association for the money loaned,—amount $2,300. She took a certificate for 46 shares of defendant's stock, which was assigned to the defendant as collateral, when the money was obtained. She, joined by her husband, gave a deed of trust to secure defendant, and also two bonds in reference to the loan, the terms of which bonds are shown by the following description of one of them: "A bond for $4,000, by which it was provided that at the request of plaintiff the defendant has purchased certain mechanic's lien notes for $2,000, * * * and extended said indebtedness, under the rules and regulations of defendant, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent. per annum, computed on the mutual building and loan plan; said indebtedness to be repaid in monthly installments of $24 on account of principal, and $10 as interest, exclusive of fines, penalties, and other legal charges; said payment to be made * * * on the first Wednesday in each month in each and every year after date, until such payments * * * shall aggregate 84 in number; then the above bond to be void." The other bond was in like terms, for the loan of $300, providing for monthly payments of $3.60 as principal and $1.50 as interest, to continue until the shares of stock should mature. The monthly payments under the two bonds aggregated $27.60 and $11.50; and these bonds style the $27.60 a payment of principal, and the $11.50 as interest, and in the plaintiff's pass book they are so entered. No payment of stock dues, eo nomine, was made or required. If in fact the payments of $27.60 were upon the principal, it is evident that there would come a time during the 84 months when the principal would be so reduced that $11.50 as monthly interest would be unlawful. The sum of $27.60 was, however, 60 cents monthly on the 46 shares of stock, and the deed of trust and certificate of stock indicate that such payments as stock payments were to be made; and this might tend to raise a question whether or not this sum was really for stock payments, and not payments on principal. It was the contract that 84 such payments, with the interest payments, which were 6 per cent. on the loan, should pay off the debt. Thus, it was contemplated that the payment should be applied to the loan. This seems to us conclusive that, while the payments of $27.60 may have originated in the idea of stock payments, they were intended and contracted to be payments on the principal as well. The fact that the bond denominates these payments as payments of...