Hemphill v. Watson

Citations

• 60 Tex. 679
• 2 Tex. L. R. 600
• 1884 Tex. LEXIS 28

Syllabus

<p>1. Usury —Constitution construed.—Art. ZVI, sec. 11, of the constitution, which declares the charging of a higher rate of interest than twelve per cent, to be usurious, and which required the legislature to provide appropriate pains and penalties to prevent and punish usury, was self-executing in its nature, so as to render all contracts for a higher rate than twelve per cent, illegal, from the date of the adoption of the constitution, and independent of laws afterwards enacted in obedience to that provision.</p> <p>2. Sahil— Any provision of a constitution is self-executing to the extent that anything done in violation of it is void. Following Buen v. Williamson, 4 Humph., 259; and Watson v. Aiken, 55 Tex., 536.</p> <p>8. Same—Usury.— A contract for more than twelve per cent, interest, entered into after the adoption of the constitution of 1876, but before the enactment of laws in obedience to its provisions, being a contract prohibited by organic law, subjected the creditor to the loss, both of legal and illegal interest, as provided by the after-enacted statute.</p> <p>4. Mortgage sale — Usury.— A purchaser at trust sale, made under amortgage with power of sale, executed to secure both principal and interest, on a contract which is usurious, obtains title, if the principal sum due was not tendered before sale. The debtor cannot afterwards procure a cancellation of the sale by offering to pay the principal sum due.</p> <p>5. Same.— The remedy of the mortgagor is to pay or to offer to pay what is due before the sale is made.</p>