Heine v. Schendel
Court of Appeals of Texas
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SEERDEN, Justice.
This is a usury case. Roy Heine, Jr. appeals from an adverse judgment rendered in favor of Clarence Schendel who, Heine alleged, charged him a usurious rate of interest in the form of a price reduction for services rendered. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Heine was in the business of providing bulldozing services; he had done occasional work for Schendel. In late 1982, Heine decided to purchase a newer, larger, bulldozer to increase his productivity and to expand his business. After he was unable to obtain the appropriate financing, he approached Schendel…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Smart v. Tower Land & Investment Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1980
- WE Grace Manufacturing Company v. LevinTexas Supreme Court · 1974
- Hotel Longview, Inc. v. PittmanCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1955
- Belzung v. Capital BankCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1980
3Cited by3 opinions
- Celestina Adame v. Law Office of Allison & Huerta, a Texas General Partnership, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2008
- Celestina Adame v. Law Office of Allison & Huerta, a Texas General Partnership, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2008
- Seacoast, Inc. v. Chuck LaCouture D/B/A Cactus Energy Michael Wayne Briggs And Briggs Cockerham, L.L.C., Texas Court of Appeals, 3rd District (Austin)2000