Legal Opinion
Weatherly v. Bristow
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Decided March 7, 1916No. 6096Published
Error from, Superior Court, Garfield County; Dan Duett, Judge. ■ Action by Carrie Bristow against E. B. Weatherly. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
RITTENHOUSE, C.
It is contended that a written demand for the return of usury, as condition precedent to the commencement of an action under section 1005, Rev. Laws 1910, should be for the return of the amount of interest received in excess of the legal rate, and not for the whole interest received. Subsequent to the filing of briefs, the case of Ardmore State Bank v. E. H. Thompson, 57 Okla. —, 164 Pac. 977, w|as decided adversely to this contention.
The judgment should therefore be affirmed.
By the Court: It is so ordered.
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stanley v. StateTennessee Supreme Court · 1850
- Ardmore State Bank v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1916