TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Cochran v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n of Houston

Marshall G. COCHRAN, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF HOUSTON, Respondent

Cochran v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Houston, 586 S.W.2d 849 (Tex. 1979)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Texas Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 11, 1979
Docket
No. B-7892
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
586 S.W.2d 84922 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 4781979 Tex. LEXIS 321

Opinion — Per Curiam

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING PER CURIAM.

This is a usury action in which Marshall Cochran sued American Savings and Loan Association seeking to recover statutory penalties under Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated article 5069 — 1.06. Ameri-can Savings denied the allegations of usury and counterclaimed for a deficiency judgment. After a jury trial, the court rendered judgment that Cochran take nothing and American Savings recover its deficiency. The court of civil appeals reversed the judgment and remanded the cause to the trial court in its entirety in the interest of justice. 568 S.W.2d 672 .

We agree with the holding of the court of civil appeals that the jury’s responses to the issues concerning American’s intent to obtain interest in excess of ten percent are immaterial. Intent in usury cases does not mean intent to charge a usurious rate of interest. Rather, it means intent to make the bargain made.

Miller v. First State Bank, 551 S.W.2d 89 (Tex.Civ.App.—Fort Worth 1977), ait’d as modified, First State Bank of Bedford v. Miller, 563 S.W.2d 572 (Tex.1978). The subjective intent of the lender is irrelevant if, in fact, the lender has contracted for, charged or received interest on a loan in excess of the maximum permitted by law. To avoid the penalties imposed by article 5069 — 1.06, the lender is required to plead, prove, and obtain a finding that his contract for, charge or receipt of usury was a result of accidental and bona fide error.

Having found error in the trial court judgment, the court of civil appeals is authorized, in a proper case, under Rule 434, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, to remand the cause in the interest of justice.

Morrow v. Shotwell, 477 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.1972);

Scott v. Liebman, 404 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.1966). Rule 434, however, further provides “if it appears to the court that the error affects a part only of the matter in controversy and that such part is clearly separable without unfairness to the parties, the judgment shall only be reversed and a new trial ordered as to that part affected by such error .. ”

This cause of action was submitted to the jury on fifty-four special issues involving both the usury allegations raised by Cochran and fraud/misrepresentation allegations raised by American Savings. The error asserted on appeal involves issues which concern only the usury allegations raised by Cochran. We view the usury issues as clearly separable from the fraud/misrepresentation issues. The trial upon remand should not include a retrial of the fraud issues which have already once been fairly tried.

Pursuant to Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, we grant Cochran’s application for writ of error on motion for rehearing and, without hearing oral argument, reform the judgment of the court of civil appeals to remand the cause to the trial court for a retrial of the issues other than the fraud issues. As reformed, the judgment of the court of civil appeals is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 38 cases

View all citing references →
1981: 51982: 21983: 51984: 11985: 11986: 31988: 21989: 31990: 21992: 11993: 11999: 12001: 32002: 12003: 32005: 12007: 22026: 119812026peak 1981 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Alamo Lumber Co. v. Gold661 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1983)
  2. Esparza v. Nolan Wells Communications, Inc.653 S.W.2d 532 (Tex. App. 1983)
  3. Gold v. Alamo Lumber Co.623 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. App. 1981)
  4. Gillivan v. Austin640 F. Supp. 1325 (D.V.I. 1986)
  5. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Schuenemann668 S.W.2d 324 (Tex. 1984)
  6. Hoxie Implement Co., Inc. v. Baker65 S.W.3d 140 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001)

Most recent

  1. Denali Construction Services, LLC. v. Cloudfund, LLC; True Business Funding LLC; Instafunding d/b/a TVT SVPL; Infusion Capital Group, LLC; Skyline Business Capital, LLC; Top Tier Capital, LLC; Parkside Funding Group, LLC; and Elite Funding, LLCNo. 24-03083 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2026)
  2. Sturm v. Muens224 S.W.3d 758 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007)
  3. Lawrence Edward Stirm, Sr. v. Guenther MuensNo. 14-04-00917-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 8, 2007)
  4. Christian Reinhard v. StateNo. 10-04-00320-CR (Tex. App.—Waco Oct. 26, 2005)
  5. Strasburger Enterprises, Inc. v. TDGT Limited Partnership110 S.W.3d 566 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003)
  6. Strasburger Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Strasburger Farms/TDGT Limited Partnership v. TDGT Limited Partnership and Mutual Service Casualty Insurance Company/Strasburger Enterprises, Inc. D/B/A Strasburger FarmsNo. 03-02-00292-CV (Tex. App.—Austin June 12, 2003)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Morrow v. Shotwell, 477 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. 1972) 271
Scott v. Liebman, 404 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1966) 162
First State Bank of Bedford v. Miller, 563 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. 1978) 66
Miller v. First State Bank, 551 S.W.2d 89 (Tex. App. 1977) 25
Cochran v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Houston, 568 S.W.2d 672 (Tex. App. 1978) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list