Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. Stratton Finance Co.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided December 31, 1941PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQua, J.

The Commonwealth brings this bill in equity in its own name. The bill is long, but for the purposes of this opinion it may be summarized as alleging these facts: The defendants have engaged in the “loan shark business.” They “keep and maintain a public nuisance . . . and are engaged in habitually, continuously, repeatedly, openly, publicly, persistently, and intentionally” violating the statutes regulating the business of making small loans to the injury of the public. They maintain an office in Boston. They make loans of $300 or less on which the interest and expenses far exceed the amount…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. In Re DebsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Ex Parte Emory H. HughesTexas Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Commonwealth v. KozlowskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921
  4. Attorney General v. WilliamsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1899
  5. Attorney General v. Jamaica Pond Aqueduct Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1882

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

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Kenyon v. City of ChicopeeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  2. Attorney General v. Kenco Optics, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
  3. City of Revere v. AucellaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  4. City of Chicago v. Festival Theatre Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Commonwealth v. United Food Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1978

14 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