Armijo v. Henry

Citations

• 14 N.M. 181
• 89 P. 305

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS (BY THE COURT).</p> <p>1. Where two parties enter into an agreement concerning the sum of money due from one to the other, and a note is given for the amount agreed upon, such note is not void for failure of consideration, in whole or in part, where there was no fraud or mistake, and where each of said parties had same means of ascertaining the validity of the amount claimed by the payee in the noté.</p> <p>2. A note given to settle the amount claimed to be due on a tax sale certificate, afterwards ascertained to be void, is not a usurious contract, although the three per cent penalty provided by statute is included in said note, neither party at the time intending to give or take a rate of interest greater than that provided by law.</p> <p>3. The rule for computing and applying partial payments known as the Massachusetts Rule, is the proper rule in this Territory.</p> <p>4. In a suit in equity, where a foreclosure of a deed of trust is sought, the note secured by which provides for an attorney’s fee of ten per cent in ease of suit, it is not error for the court to allow such attorney’s fee, the note and deed of trust being executed at the same time by the same parties and in the furtherance of the same general object.</p>