Langille v. Central-Penn National Bank
Court of Chancery of Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
Seitz, Chancellor:
The plaintiffs seek to have discharged a bond and mortgage executed by the plaintiffs and held by the defendant, Bank, on the ground that the party through whom the defendant acquired the bond and mortgage in effect made a usurious loan. The defendant has moved for summary judgment and this is the decision thereon.
No material facts are in dispute. On May 29, 1953, Washington Lumber and Millwork Co. (“Washington”) and Barco, Inc. (“Bar-co”) made an agreement whereby Washington was to sell and Barco to buy all of Washington’s deferred payment sales contracts of the type…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Commercial Credit Co. v. TarwaterSupreme Court of Alabama · 1926
- Equitable Credit & Discount Co. v. GeierSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1941
- Dunn v. Midland Loan Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- Jackson v. Commercial Credit Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1954
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Saul v. Midlantic Nat. Bank/SouthNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1990
- Langille v. Central-Penn Nat. Bank of PhiladelphiaCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1959