Nevels v. Harris
Decision Date | 24 February 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 7171.,7171. |
Citation | 102 S.W.2d 1046 |
Parties | NEVELS et al. v. HARRIS. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Lockhart & Brown, of Lubbock, and C. H. Cain, of Tahoka, for plaintiffs in error.
Edwin H. Yeiser and Coleman Gay, both of Austin, for defendant in error.
This suit was filed in the district court of Travis county, Tex., by H. H. Harris against J. H. Newsom and wife, Audrey Newsom, W. B. Slaton, F. E. Redwine, W. D. Nevels, and G. E. Lockhart to recover on a note for $6,400 executed by the Newsoms as principals, and by Slaton, Redwine, and Nevels as sureties. Also, in Harris' petition he seeks foreclosure of a deed of trust lien given by J. H. Newsom and wife to Lockhart as trustee to secure the above note. This deed of trust covers 640 acres of land in Lynn and Dawson counties, Tex. Lockhart is the trustee named in this deed of trust, and is sued only as such. The case was finally submitted to the court in the district court without the intervention of a jury and judgment rendered awarding Harris a recovery against J. H. Newsom, W. D. Nevels, W. B. Slaton, and F. E. Redwine for the principal, interest, and attorney's fees alleged to be due on the note sued on. Judgment was also rendered for Harris against all the defendants foreclosing the deed of trust lien on the land above mentioned. No personal judgment was rendered against Mrs. Newsom. The judgment contains other matter not necessary to mention here. All the defendants excepted to the above judgment and gave notice of appeal. Slaton, Nevels, and Redwine, however, were the only defendants to perfect such appeal. On final hearing in the Court of Civil Appeals the judgment of the district court was in all things affirmed. 95 S.W.(2d) 1315. Slaton, Nevels, and Redwine, jointly, have prosecuted writ of error to this Court.
We shall not attempt to detail the pleadings. It is enough to say that we will assume that they are sufficient on both sides to raise the questions of law which we shall decide. We will note, however, that the defendants in the district court urged the defense of usury to the note here sued on.
It appears that on November 27, 1926, one Otto Stolley was engaged in business in the city of Austin, Travis county, Tex. Generally speaking, his business was that of a loan broker, and he had followed such vocation in Austin many years prior to such date. On the date just named J. H. Newsom and his wife, Audrey Newsom, applied in writing to Stolley to either loan them $6,400 for five years at 8 per cent. interest per annum or secure some one else to make such loan. This application stated that the applicants would pay Stolley "for making or securing said loan for us, five per cent on the amount of the same as your fees, two and one-half per cent of the same for your inspector, and one per cent on the amount of the same for attorney's fees," or a total of $544. This application offered a section of land in Lynn and Dawson counties as security for such loan. It appears that this application was mailed to Stolley by G. E. Lockhart from Lubbock, Tex., with a letter signed This letter was dated December 23, 1926, and in substance informed Stolley that the above application was inclosed; that the land offered as security was situated about four miles west of O'Donnell; that it was worth $20 per acre; that the application was to take up prior liens on the land; that F. E. Redwine, W. B. Slaton, and W. D. Nevels would also sign the note; and that the land and additional personal security would make a first-class loan.
We will not attempt to detail all of the transactions that occurred regarding the above application. It finally culminated in a loan, and, for the purposes of this opinion, we will assume that it culminated in a loan made by Otto Stolley, represented by a note executed by J. H. Newsom and wife, Audrey Newsom, W. B. Slaton, F. E. Redwine, and W. D. Nevels, and a deed of trust executed by J. H. Newsom and wife to G. E. Lockhart as trustee to secure such note.
The note in question is set out in the record. It is dated November 27, 1926; it is for the principal sum of $6,400; it was due five years after date; it bears 10 per cent. interest from maturity; it provides for 10 per cent. attorney's fees; it recites that it is secured by deed of trust on 640 acres of land in Lynn and Dawson counties, Tex.; and it, by its terms, is payable "to the order of Otto Stolley." Also attached to said note, as a part thereof, were five interest coupon notes in the principal sum of $512 each, representing 8 per cent. interest on the above principal note of $6,400 for each of the five years it was to run. The deed of trust securing such note is, in the main, the ordinary form of deed of trust wherein the above land was conveyed to G. E. Lockhart as trustee to secure the above note and interest coupons. We, however, deem it necessary to quote the following portions of the deed of trust:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Schuenemann
...and in the course of the same transaction are to be construed together. Jones v. Kelley, 614 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.1981); Nevels v. Harris, 129 Tex. 190, 102 S.W.2d 1046 (1937). Three documents, all executed on February 9, 1976, comprised the contract in issue here: a "Building Contract," an "Inst......
-
In re Auto Intern. Refrigeration
...S.W.2d 903, 906 (Tex.1976); Greever v. Persky, 140 Tex. 64, 165 S.W.2d 709, 712 (1942).10 In addition, the Texas Supreme Court held in Nevels v. Harris, and what Plaintiff advocates as the proper law to apply, that "bona fide fees ... paid to the lender's special agents, are not to be consi......
-
IN RE PERRY
...756 F.2d 1197, 1206 (5th Cir.1985), citing First State Bank of Bedford v. Miller, 563 S.W.2d 572, 575 (Tex.1978); Nevels v. Harris, 129 Tex. 190, 102 S.W.2d 1046, 1048 (1937). However, bona fide fees paid to parties other than the lender are neither "characterized as interest nor are deduct......
-
Mack v. Newton
...the note, particularly as each refers to the other. See e.g., Walker v. Temple Trust Co., supra, 80 S.W.2d at 936; Nevels v. Harris, 129 Tex. 190, 102 S.W.2d 1046 (1937). See also Jones v. Kelly, 614 S.W.2d 95, 98 (Tex.1981); Miles v. Martin, 159 Tex. 336, 321 S.W.2d 62, 65 (1959); Veal v. ......