Braniff Inv. Co. v. Norton
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
HUTCHESON, Circuit Judge.
This appeal tests whether there was usury in the loan papers plaintiffs sued to cancel. The District Judge thought there was. He thought that, made in Texas, the contract must be construed and enforced according to Texas law, and that under them its usury was plain. Appellants, insisting that the contract is not usurious under Texas law, really plant themselves upon the proposition that, payable in Okla-. homa, whether it is usurious or not must be determined by Oklahoma law.
We agree with the District Judge that the contract is usurious under Texas law. Because there…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Seeman v. Philadelphia Warehouse Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Adleson v. B. F. Dittmar Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1935
- Bothwell v. Farmers & Merchants State Bank & Trust Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1930
- Building & Loan Ass'n of Dakota v. GriffinTexas Supreme Court · 1897
- Clement Mortgage Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hollamon v. First State Bank of StroudSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1963
- Wade v. DarringCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1974
- Apodaca v. Banco Longoria, S. A.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1970