Triton Oil and Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors and Supply, Inc.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. C-630,C-630 |
| Parties | TRITON OIL AND GAS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. MARINE CONTRACTORS AND SUPPLY, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
John L. Roach, Inc., William H. Butterfield, Jr. and D. Stephen Fort, Dallas, Houston Munson, Gonzales, for petitioner.
Lilly and Winchester, Lance C. Winchester, Houston, for respondent.
This suit involved a counterclaim for usury in which the trial court overruled the debtor's motion to include usury penalties in the judgment rendered against the creditor. The court of appeals reversed that part of the judgment overruling the debtor's motion and rendered judgment in favor of the debtor for twice the amount of usurious interest charged. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Triton Oil & Gas Corporation entered into a letter agreement with Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc., whereby Triton agreed to drill, complete, equip, and maintain a well for the production of oil and gas in Lavaca County. Triton was to pay two-thirds of the "cost, risk and expense," and Marine was to pay the remaining one-third. The letter agreement contained no provision for interest to be charged on any outstanding balance Marine might incur.
Marine became dissatisfied with Triton's performance and refused to pay its pro rata share of the costs. Triton charged Marine 10 percent interest on its unpaid balance and sent Marine monthly invoices which reflected this charge. Marine did not complain of the interest charges, but Marine did not pay any of the invoices or receive any proceeds from the well.
Triton brought suit to recover Marine's share of the costs plus the interest charges thereon. Marine counterclaimed, alleging negligence, conversion, and usury. No special issues regarding the usury claim were requested or submitted by either party. After trial to a jury, final judgment was rendered in favor of Marine for the sum of $131,542.33, plus an additional $89,629.00 which represented Marine's pro rata share of the proceeds from the well. Marine then filed a motion in the trial court to include damages for usury in the judgment. This motion was overruled.
Triton appealed. By cross-point, Marine claimed the 10 percent interest rate charged by Triton on Marine's outstanding balance was usurious. Marine contended that since the written contract between the parties did not specify a rate of interest, the highest allowable rate under Article 5069-1.03 was 6 percent. The court of appeals sustained Marine's cross-point and rendered judgment for Marine for twice the amount of the usurious interest charged as provided by Article 5069-1.06(1), Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann Article 5069-1.03 provides:
When no specified rate of interest is agreed upon by the parties, interest at the rate of six percent per annum shall be allowed on all accounts and contracts ascertaining the sum payable, commencing on the thirtieth (30th) day from and after the sum is due and payable.
Article 5069-1.03, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann.
It is uncontroverted that Triton charged Marine 10 percent interest on a written contract which contained no provision for interest. Triton, however, contends Marine waived its right to recover on the usury claim by failing to submit a special issue on the absence of any agreement between the parties specifying a rate of interest. Tex.R.Civ.P. 279. Marine contends no request for special issues was required because the evidence conclusively established the absence of an agreement.
Where there is no agreement to a specific rate of interest, the statutory rate of 6 percent is read into the agreement, and is the maximum rate of interest allowed on the transaction. Houston Sash & Door Co. v. Heaner, 577 S.W.2d 217, 221 (Tex.1979); Windhorst v. Adcock Pipe & Supply, 547 S.W.2d 260, 261 n. 2 (Tex.1977); Article 5069-1.03, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. A party charging more than 6 percent interest under such circumstances is subject to the statutory penalties provided in Article 5069-1.06.
At the time Marine filed its counterclaim, the only agreement pleaded by Triton was the letter agreement. Triton filed no answer to Marine's counterclaim in which any other agreement was alleged. The letter agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paxton v. City of Dall.
...549, 552 (Tex.1976).63 Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co. v. Martinez, 977 S.W.2d 328, 340 (Tex.1998) ; Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc., 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex.1982).64 811 S.W.2d 557, 560 (Tex.1991).65 Id. at 558.66 Id. at 560. In defense of jurors, it should be noted......
-
City of Keller v. Wilson
...note 12, at 364. 18. See In re J.F.C., 96 S.W.3d 256, 266 (Tex.2002); Uniroyal, 977 S.W.2d at 340; Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc., 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex.1982). 19. Calvert, supra note 12, at 364 ("If there is an absolute absence of evidence of a vital fact . ......
-
Hand v. Dean Witter Reynolds Inc.
...established if ordinary minds cannot differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc., 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex.1982). Appellees claimed in their motion for summary judgment that their summary judgment proof negated, as a......
-
Bradt v. West
...Zep Mfg. Co. v. Harthcock, 824 S.W.2d 654, 657-58 (Tex.App.--Dallas 1992, no writ) (citing Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc., 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex.1982)). When the defendant has produced competent evidence negating a necessary element of the plaintiff's cause o......
-
Summary Judgment Practice
...minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc. , 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex. 1982). Once the plaintiff establishes its right to summary judgment, the defendant may avoid summary judgment by producing evid......
-
Table of cases
...Engineering Dev. , 4 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 899 (E.D. La. 1998), §9:3.D.1.b Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc. , 644 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. 1982), §41:2.A.1.a Trizec Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court , 280 Cal. Rptr. 885 (Cal. App. 1991), §14:7 Trotter v. Jack Anderson E......
-
Summary Judgment Practice
...minds could not differ as to the conclusions to be drawn from the evidence. Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc. , 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex. 1982). Once the plaintiff establishes its right to summary judgment, the defendant may avoid summary judgment by producing evid......
-
Table of cases
...Engineering Dev. , 4 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 899 (E.D. La. 1998), §9:3.D.1.b Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v. Marine Contractors & Supply, Inc. , 644 S.W.2d 443 (Tex. 1982), §41:2.A.1.a Trizec Properties, Inc. v. Superior Court , 280 Cal. Rptr. 885 (Cal. App. 1991), §14:7 Trotter v. Jack Anderson E......