Trinity Fire Ins. Co. v. Kerrville Hotel Co.
Decision Date | 17 March 1937 |
Docket Number | No. 7187.,7187. |
Citation | 103 S.W.2d 121 |
Parties | TRINITY FIRE INS. CO. et al. v. KERRVILLE HOTEL CO. et al. |
Court | Texas Supreme Court |
William M. Light, L. G. Seeligson, L. M. Patterson, Pfeiffer & Sanders, Bennett & Klein, Henry, Bickett & Bickett, and W. B. Jack Ball, all of San Antonio, Davidson, Randall & Gray, Goggans & Keith, and Touchstone, Wight, Gormley & Price, all of Dallas, and Coleman Gay, of Austin, for plaintiffs in error.
Boyle, Wheeler, Gresham & Terrell and H. M. Parker, all of San Antonio, for defendants in error.
This is a usury suit. It was filed in the district court of Bexar county, Tex., by Kerrville Hotel Company, a Texas corporation, H. M. Harrison, E. G. Walsh, and Jessie G. Burney, independent executrix of the estate of R. L. Burney, deceased, against Trinity Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, and numerous other parties, corporate and private. The basic purpose of the suit is to declare certain bonds originally given by Kerrville Hotel Company et al. and originally negotiated to J. E. Jarratt Mortgage Company, a private corporation, tainted with usury. The case was submitted to the jury in the trial court on two special issues, and, based on the jury's findings to such issues, judgment was entered, in effect adjudging the above-mentioned bonds tainted with usury. On appeal this judgment was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 91 S.W.(2d) 973. Trinity Fire Insurance Company et al. bring error.
The facts and contracts involved in this litigation are rather complicated, but we will do our best to make such statement of the facts and issues as is necessary to decide the questions of law presented in the application.
As already stated, this suit was filed by the Hotel Company et al. against the above-named Fire Insurance Company et al. alleging that a certain loan, which we shall later more fully describe, made by J. E. Jarratt Mortgage Company to the Hotel Company et al. was and is usurious. The petition of the Hotel Company seeks certain statutory relief from such loan in case it is held to be usurious.
The Fire Insurance Company et al. are the holders of the bonds representing the above loan. We shall not attempt to detail their pleadings. It is enough to say that we treat the pleadings of all parties as sufficient to raise the issues of law we shall later discuss and decide.
The evidence contained in this record establishes the following facts:
Certain citizens of the city of Kerrville were interested in securing the erection of a new and modern hotel for that city. In consummation of this desire these parties made a contract with H. M. Harrison and R. L. Burney whereby Harrison and Burney agreed that they, or a corporation to be formed by them, would build such hotel. In this contract it was agreed that construction of the hotel would begin in six months from the date of the contract. It was also agreed that Harrison and Burney were to receive as a bonus for building such hotel a lot in Kerrville valued at $60,000, on which the hotel was to be built, and $10,000 in money. In case such hotel was not started within six months from the date of this contract the promoters were not to get the lot or the $10,000 bonus money, but on the contrary were to pay to the Kerrville citizens a sum of $10,000 as liquidated damages.
It appears that Harrison and Burney then approached J. E. Jarratt Mortgage Company, a corporation, of San Antonio, Tex., and sought a loan to construct the above hotel. We will not attempt to detail all the negotiations leading up to the loan as actually made. It is sufficient to say that such negotiations culminated in the following written contract:
Said deferred payments to be represented by notes acceptable to the J. E. Jarratt Mortgage Company, but not to provide for interest until after maturity.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stedman v. Georgetown Sav. and Loan Ass'n
...to extract additional interest. Kissell Co. v. Gressley, 591 F.2d 47, 52 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1979); see Trinity Fire Ins. Co. v. Kerrville Hotel Co., 129 Tex. 310, 103 S.W.2d 121, 125 (1937) (court rejected contention that $12,000 "handling fee" was payment for a separate and independent transac......
-
Terry v. Teachworth
...was actually an interest charge. Also there are other circumstances raising the issue. See Trinity Fire Ins. Co. v. Kerrville Hotel Co., 129 Tex. 310, 103 S.W.2d 121, 127, 110 A.L.R. 442; 3 Baylor L.Rev. 75; Moser v. John F. Buckner & Sons, 292 S.W.2d 668 (Tex.Civ.App.), writ ref., n.r.e.; ......
-
Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd.
...Under Texas law, fees charged by a lender for ordinary overhead constitute interest. See, e.g., Trinity Fire Ins. Co. v. Kerrville Hotel Co., 129 Tex. 310, 103 S.W.2d 121, 125 (Tex.1937); Nicewander, Sheen & West, TEXAS USURY LAW HANDBOOK § 4:3 (1997) ("any charges for services normally inc......
-
Hewitt v. Citizens Sav. Bank & Trust Co.
...affirmed by the Supreme Court in 107 S.W.2d 368; Glover v. Buchman, Tex.Civ.App., 104 S. W.2d 66; Trinity Fire Ins. Co. v. Kerrville Hotel Co., 129 Tex. 310, 103 S.W.2d 121, 110 A.L.R. 442; Temple Trust Co. v. Sewell, Tex.Civ.App., 108 S.W.2d 279; Ingram v. Temple Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App., 1......