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

  1. Bean v. RumrillSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1918
  2. Floersheim v. Board of CommissionersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1922
  3. Richter v. BurdockIllinois Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Stone v. MyersSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1864
  5. Jaffa v. LopezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1934

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Paulos v. JanetakosNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1942
  2. State v. JohnsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1948
  3. City of Santa Fe v. VelardeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Ruidoso State Bank v. GarciaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1978
  5. Cartwright v. Public Service Company of New MexicoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1959

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API