5 Texas opinions name it 2 courts 1941–1997 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Clements v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1984In the instant case, the installment note provides that upon acceleration, the holder may declare "all of the remainder of said installments due and said note will mature and it shall at once become due and payable," and the lien contract states that upon acceleration the holder may "declare the entire unpaid balance of said note immediately due." We view the language in these two instruments as similar enough to the default maturity clause in Clements v. Williams, 136 Tex. 97 , 147 S.W.2d 769 , to make that case controlling. 1984In the instant case, the installment note provides that upon acceleration, the holder may declare "all of the remainder of said installments due and said note will mature and it shall at once become due and payable," and the lien contract states that upon acceleration the holder may "declare the entire unpaid balance of said note immediately due." We view the language in these two instruments as similar enough to the default maturity clause in Clements v. Williams, 136 Tex. 97 , 147 S.W.2d 769 , to make that case controlling. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walker v. Temple Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1962In Clements v. Williams, 136 Tex. 97 , 147 S.W.2d 769 , the Supreme Court held: “If the default maturity clause had merely provided for the maturity of the debt, the note would not be usurious because unearned interest could not be collected.” In Walker v. Temple Trust Co., 124 Tex. 575 , 80 S.W.2d 935 , the Supreme Court held: “The determination of whether or not usury exists in a contract is a matter involving first and pre-eminently the principle which is the polestar of construction, to wit: The ascertainment of the dominánt purpose and intention of the parties embodied in the contract, in 1962In Clements v. Williams, 136 Tex. 97 , 147 S.W.2d 769 , the Supreme Court held: “If the default maturity clause had merely provided for the maturity of the debt, the note would not be usurious because unearned interest could not be collected.” In Walker v. Temple Trust Co., 124 Tex. 575 , 80 S.W.2d 935 , the Supreme Court held: “The determination of whether or not usury exists in a contract is a matter involving first and pre-eminently the principle which is the polestar of construction, to wit: The ascertainment of the dominánt purpose and intention of the parties embodied in the contract, in | 2 | 1941–1962 |
Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. Schuenemann
green
2 sentences1997The Court announced, "[w]e therefore hold that the default maturity clause in the installment note and lien contract unambiguously call for the collection of unearned time price differential." Id. 1997The Court announced, “[w]e therefore hold that the default maturity clause in the installment note and lien contract unambiguously call for the collection of unearned time price differential.” Id. | 1 | 1997–1997 |