Legal Opinion
Flint v. Kimbrough
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided June 9, 1941No. 4611PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BICKLEY, Justice.
Appellant sued appellee to recover treble the amount of interest she paid to appellee on a promissory note, alleging that the interest she was required to pay was usurious under the provisions of § 89-110, N.M.S.A. 1929 Comp., as amended by Chap. 142, Laws of 1933, which are as follows:
“If a greater rate of interest than is hereinbefore, in Section 1 (89-109) allowed, shall be contracted for or received or reserved, the contract shall not therefor be void; but in any action on the contract proof may be made that a greater rate of interest has been directly or indirectly…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Bean v. RumrillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
- Floersheim v. Board of CommissionersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
- Richter v. BurdockIllinois Supreme Court · 1913
- Stone v. MyersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
- Jaffa v. LopezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1934
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Paulos v. JanetakosNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1942
- State v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1948
- City of Santa Fe v. VelardeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
- Ruidoso State Bank v. GarciaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1978
- Cartwright v. Public Service Company of New MexicoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.