Legal Opinion

Contino v. Turello

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided December 1, 1924PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWheeleb, C. J.

The defendant indorser’s reasons of appeal support his claims that the note in suit was usurious, because: (1) the plaintiff payee had accepted the note for $6,000, being a larger amount than was loaned thereon, $4,950, and with intent to violate the provisions of General Statutes, § 4798 * and § 4799 † ; (2) the plaintiff demanded payment of the face of the note instead of the amount actually loaned, and with intent to violate General Statutes, § 4798. Further reasons of appeal are: (3) that plaintiff cannot maintain this action because in violation of and prohibited by § 4798 and § 4799,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Baggish v. OffengandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
  2. Baggish v. OffengandSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1923
  3. Devito v. FrebergSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1919

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Mildred Ives v. W. T. Grant CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
  2. Bochicchio v. PetrocelliSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
  3. Community Credit Union, Inc. v. ConnorsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
  4. Gruber v. KleinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  5. In re Lico Manufacturing Co.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1961

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API