Legal Opinion

Capital Loan & Savings Co. v. Biery

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 10, 1938No. 26908PublishedCited by 38 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMyers, J.

The principal question in this cause is whether the promissory note and chattel mortgage, executed and delivered by defendants to plaintiff, are void by reason of Sections 6346-5 and 6346-5a, General Code.

Section 6346-5 reads in part as follows: “No such licensee or licensees shall make a loan or purchase or furnish guaranty, or security, as hereinbefore provided at a greater total charge, including interest, than three per cent per month; except that on loans that do not exceed fifty dollars in amount, in whatever manner made payable, an inspection fee of not to exceed one dollar may be…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Frober v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
  2. Ideal Financing Association v. LabonteSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  3. London Realty Co. v. . RiordanNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
  4. Dunham v. GouldNew York Supreme Court · 1819
  5. Rice v. Franklin Loan & Finance Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1927

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

3Cited by38 opinions

  1. Maritime Manufacturers, Inc. v. Hi-Skipper MarinaOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Welsh Development Co. v. Warren County Regional Planning CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 2011
  3. Couk v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1941
  4. AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. LynchOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Meyer v. MeyerOhio Supreme Court · 1950

33 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