Orr v. McDaniel
Decision Date | 05 June 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 3249.,3249. |
Citation | 30 S.W.2d 487 |
Parties | ORR v. McDANIEL et ux. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; Clark M. Mullican, Judge.
Suit by L. A. McDaniel and wife against G. H. Orr. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Judgment reversed, 30 S.W.(2d) 489.
Bean & Klett, of Lubbock, for appellant.
Bledsoe, Crenshaw & Dupree, of Lubbock, for appellees.
The plaintiffs, L. A. McDaniel and his wife, Ava McDaniel, in a suit in the district court of Lubbock county, Tex., recovered a judgment against the defendant, G. H. Orr, for the sum of $612, based on their contention that the defendant had collected, on a loan which he made to them, the sum of $250, more than 10 per cent. interest for the use of the money.
This is the second appeal in this case, and, for a statement of the pleadings, we refer to the opinion of Judge Randolph in the former appeal, 5 S.W.(2d) 175, 178, in which a judgment for the plaintiffs was reversed and the cause remanded because of the error of the court in directing the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiffs.
The case was again tried in the district court of Lubbock county, and, in response to the only issue submitted by the court, the jury found that the plaintiffs paid the defendant the $250 as interest.
On this finding the court rendered judgment that the plaintiffs have and recover from the defendant the sum of $612, which is double the amount of the interest paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant. From this judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
The appellant urges as error the action of the trial court in rendering judgment against him, because the finding of the jury that the appellees paid the $250 to the appellant as interest is not sufficient to authorize the judgment against him, because there is no finding of the jury of fraud and no finding of the jury that appellant intended to charge usurious interest, and that the contract upon which appellees' suit is based was a scheme or device to cover such intention of appellant.
The appellees alleged that the contract was drawn and written at the instance of the appellant for the fraudulent and illegal purpose of concealing the fact that he was charging appellees a usurious rate of interest.
The appellant alleged and offered testimony tending to prove that the $250 was not charged as interest, but was for the risk assumed by appellant in becoming a party to the mechanic's lien contract and for the services he rendered to appellees in connection with the building of the house.
In the opinion of this court on the former appeal, it is said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moser v. John F. Buckner & Sons
...or shift to cover usury; and that it was in full contemplation of the parties. Webb on Usury, pp. 33-34, sec. 33.' See Orr v. McDaniel, Tex.Civ.App., 30 S.W.2d 487, reversed on other grounds, Tex.Com.App., 30 S.W.2d 489; Walker v. Temple Trust Co., Tex.Com.App., 124 Tex. 575, 80 S.W.2d 935;......