collection agency’s argument that since it was not patty to original loan transaction, it could not be held liable for usury statutory penalties because '‘[otherwise, one who was not a party to the original loan transaction ... could attempt to collect usurious interest without fear of the penalties for usuty”); Davis v. Boling, 340 S.W.2d 331, 334 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1960, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (stating that burden is on debtor to plead and prove that creditor has “notice or knowledge of the usury in the transaction” when "there is nothing to show upon the face of the note that it is a usurious contract” and there is nothing in record to show creditor "had any notice of any usury”); Hamor v. Commerce Farm Credit Co., 74 S.W.2d 1035, 1038 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1934, writ dism’d) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Additionally, we note that the penalty
holding that to recover statutory penalty for usury against assignee plaintiff must prove assignees knowledge or notice of usurious interest holding that the penalty is applicable holding that the right to pursue a statutory penalty for charging usurious interest was unassignable holding plaintiff could not recover on nuisance action to recover for alleged damage to property he does not own or rent holding that under rico plaintiff must prove an injury because of violation of statute