Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

160 Tex. 256

328 S.W.2d 294

3 Tex.Sup.Ct.J. 28

Smith v. State

Texas Supreme Court

Decided October 14, 1959

Texas Supreme Court · decided 1959-10-14

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Under the holding of this Court in Maud v. Terrell, 109 Tex. 97 , 200 S.W. 375 , it is clear that when the Legislature creates a new or additional cause of action in favor of the State it may also constitutionally authorize the Attorney General to prosecute such cause of action in both the trial and appellate courts of the State.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Wilson Finance Company v. State

Relies on Maud, Tax Collector v. Terrell, Comptroller · State v. WALKER-TEXAS INVESTMENT COMPANY

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1959-10-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1999

4 state decisions

2019591960197019801990decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM:

¶1 The Court of Civil Appeals has sustained the authority of the Attorney General to maintain suits in the District Courts of this State to enjoin those who habitually loan money at usurious interest rates. See, State of Texas v. Walker - Texas Investment Co., et al, 325 S.W. 2d 209. L. C. Smith has filed an application for writ of error in this Court.

¶2 1 Chapter 144 of the Acts of the 48th Legislature (Acts 1943, p. 227, Article 4646b, Vernon’s Ann. Texas Stats.) provides that the State of Texas may secure an injunction against those engaged in the business of habitually loaning money at usurious rates of interest. The statute created a new cause of action in favor of the State and expressly authorized the Attorney General, as well as any District or County Attorney, to institute and prosecute the statutory suit thus created.

¶3 2 Under the holding of this Court in Maud v. Terrell, 109 Texas 97, 200 S.W. 375, it is clear that when the Legislature creates a new or additional cause of action in favor of the State it may also constitutionally authorize the Attorney General to prosecute such cause of action in both the trial and appellate courts of the State.

¶4 *258 The application for writ of error is refused, no reversible error.

¶5 Opinion delivered October 14, 1959.

/160/tex/256 · .json · Public domain