Hoxie Implement Company, Inc. v. Jim Baker, Individually and dba Baker Harvesting--Appeal from 84th District Court of Hansford County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-00-0175-CV
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
OCTOBER 23, 2001
______________________________
HOXIE IMPLEMENT CO., INC,
Appellant
v.
JIM BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BAKER HARVESTING,
Appellee
_________________________________
FROM THE 84th DISTRICT COURT FOR HANSFORD COUNTY;
NO. 4281; HON. WILLIAM D. SMITH, PRESIDING
_______________________________
ON SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING
_______________________________
Before BOYD, C.J., QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
Pending before the court is the second motion for rehearing filed by Jim Baker,
individually and d/b/a Baker Harvesting.
Several issues are asserted but only one
necessitates comment. It involves the proposition that we should not have ordered him to
pay interest on the amount due Hoxie Implement Company under the open account. This
is allegedly so because he had tendered payment of the amount due. We disagree.
Generally, tendering to one’s creditor the amount owed bars the further accrual of
interest.
J.M. Hollis Const. Co. v. Paul Durham Co., 641 S.W.2d 354, 357 (Tex.
App.–Corpus Christi 1982, no writ); see Churchill v. Russey, 692 S.W.2d 596, 598 (Tex.
App.–Fort Worth 1985, no writ) (stating that the tender of both principal and accrued
interest stopped the accrual of further interest).
However, tendering a part of the debt
does not. J.M. Hollis Const. Co. v. Paul Durham Co., 641 S.W.2d at 358.
Here, Baker tendered payment of the open account approximately 14 months after
the debt became due payable. Furthermore, the amount of his cashier’s check reflected
solely the outstanding principal. It did not include the interest which Hoxie was entitled to
recover by statute. TEX . FIN . CODE ANN . §302.002 (Vernon Supp. 2001) (permitting a
creditor to charge and receive from the obligor legal interest at the rate of six percent per
annum when a rate has not been agreed upon by the parties). Consequently, the check
encompassed only a partial payment of the debt, which payment was ineffective to bar
further accrual of interest.1
Accordingly, we overrule Baker’s second motion for rehearing.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Publish
1
To the exten t that Johnso n-W alk er Mov. & Storage, Inc. v. Lane Container Co., 548 S.W .2d 500
(Tex. Civ. App. Eastland 1977, writ ref’d n.r.e.) suggests that the debtor need only tender the principal due,
we do not find it controlling for several reasons. First, in Johnson, the creditor accepted the tender of the
principal; here, Hoxie did not beca use it failed to include interes t. Second, irrespective of h ow the interest is
categorized, eo nomine or otherwise, it remains a sum to which the creditor is entitled and which the debtor
must pay if demanded by the creditor. So, refusing to pay legitimately accrued interest cannot logically be
considered fu ll paym ent of the debt, a s contem plated by J. M . Hollis and Churchill.
2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
