Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Clark v. Appeal of Chicago Municipal Employees Credit Union

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Decided July 11, 1997No. Nos. 96-1326, 96-1434 and 96-1662Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

MANTON,

Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I agree with the court’s analysis in part II.A but part company on part II.B. Clark’s failure to pay the credit union the balance due on the credit card was a loan. As noted in State of Ill. ex rel. Lignoul v. Continental Nat’l Bank and Trust Co. of Chicago, 409 F.Supp. 1167, 1178 (N.D.Ill.1975), “a loan may be defined as a contract whereby one delivers money to another who agrees to return an equivalent sum at a future time[;] a significant aspect of a loan is the running of interest.” Not only did Clark have a line of credit,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Independent Bankers Ass'n of America v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1976
  2. Illinois ex rel. Lignoul v. Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1975

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

Powered by the Exa API