Amarillo Equity v. Craycroft Lacy

3 Citing cases

  1. Risica Sons v. Tubelite

    794 S.W.2d 468 (Tex. App. 1990)   Cited 4 times

    Since Tubelite and Risica did not agree to a specific interest rate, the statutory rate of six percent is by law read into the agreement. It is the maximum rate of interest allowed on this type of transaction. Houston Sash Door Co. v. Heaner, 577 S.W.2d 217, 221 (Tex. 1979); Amarillo Equity Investors, Inc. v. Craycroft Lacy Partners, 654 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1983, no writ); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5069-1.03 (Vernon 1987).

  2. In re Charter Co.

    913 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir. 1990)   Cited 79 times
    Holding that turnover proceedings should not be used to liquidate disputed claims

    Id. In Amarillo Equity Investors v. Craycroft Lacy Partners, 654 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.App. — Ft. Worth 1983), another appellate court adopted the same interpretation of the issue. Id. at 30-31.

  3. Augusta Dev. v. Fish Oil Well

    761 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. App. 1988)   Cited 27 times

    A charge of 18% interest, moreover, is more than twice the 6 percent allowed by law and subjects the party to the harsher penalties of subdivision 2. See Amarillo Equity Investors, Inc. v. Craycroft Lacy Partners, 654 S.W.2d 28, 30 (Tex.App. — Fort Worth 1983, no writ); Flato Electric Supply Co. v. Grant, 620 S.W.2d 915, 917 (Tex.Civ.App. — Corpus Christi 1981, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In order for Fish Oil's demand for interest in the present case not to be usurious, the work tickets must constitute valid written agreements to pay interest at 18%.