Legal Opinion
Panos v. Smith
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided December 13, 1940No. 8520PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARANT, Circuit Judge.
Pursuant -to § 86 of Title 12, U.S.C., 12 U.S.C.A. § 86, 1 appellants brought -suit to recover double the amount of alleged usurious interest paid to the First National Bank and Trust Company, of Flint, Michigan, of which appellee Smith is receiver. When appellants rested, the District Court directed a verdict for appellees on the ground that the action was not timely brought. Whether the court erred in so doing is the only question here presented. There is no dispute as to the facts.
Appellants negotiated two loans from the bank, the first on March 3, 1928, for $2,000,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- McCollum v. Hamilton National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Evans v. National Bank of SavannahSupreme Court of the United States · 1919
- Schuyler National Bank v. GadsdenSupreme Court of the United States · 1903
- McCarthy v. First Nat. Bank of Rapid CitySupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- Gladwin State Bank v. DowMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Greenwood Trust Company v. Commonwealth of MassachusettsCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992
- Northway Lanes v. Hackley Union National Bank And Trust CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1972
- Copeland v. MBNA America, N.A.District Court, D. Colorado · 1993
- Nelson v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1992
- Tikkanen v. Citibank (South Dakota) N.A.District Court, D. Minnesota · 1992
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.