Marsh v. Tiller

(after'stating the facts- as above). The trial court did not submit and appellant did not ask him to submit to the jury an issue as to whether the $3,150 note was usurious, as alleged by him, or not. Therefore this court must assume, in support of the judgment, that the note was not usurious and that the trial court found it was not, unless the testimony forbade such a finding (art. 2190, R. S. 1925); for the burden of proving the note was usurious, as alleged, was on appellant. Rushing v. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 162 S. W. 460; Slaughter Co. v. Eller (Tex. Civ. App.) 196 S. W. 704; Briant v.…