Hopkins v. Crittenden
Texas Supreme Court
Error from Red River. This suit was brought upon a promissory note, dated January loth, 1849, and payable on the 25th day of December thereafter, “with ten per cent, interest from date.” In the rendition of the judgment at the May term, 1851, interest was computed at ten per cent, from the date of the note up to that time.
1Opinion of the CourtTVheeleb, J.
It is objected that interest at ten per cent, was allowed after the maturity of the note; whereas, it is insisted that eight per cent, only was recoverable after that period. The statute fixes the legal rate of interest at eight per cent., and authorizes the recovery of that rate of interest “ on all written con- “ tracts ascertaining the sum due, when no specific premium or rate of interest is “expressed.” (Dig., art. 1607.) But here a specific rate of interest is expressed in the contract. Ir. does not, therefore, come within the provision fixing the legal rate of interest, but is clearly…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Cromwell v. County of SacSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Petroscience Corporation v. Diamond Geophysical, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1984
- Union Institution for Savings v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1880
- Barbour v. TompkinsWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1888
- Hubbard v. CallahanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1875
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.