Manchester Realty Co. v. Kanehl
Supreme Court of Connecticut
1Opinion of the CourtMaltbie, C. J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover on a note and the defendant pleaded that it was usurious and that the action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Judgment was for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed. The issues presented on the record arise out of the overruling of the two defenses. It is not necessary, however, to consider a subsidiary claim made by the defendant that the note in suit was tainted with usury because it represented a balance due from him to the plaintiff upon a previous note which was usurious, or the question whether the action was barred by the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Atlas Realty Corp. v. HouseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1937
- Atlas Realty Corporation v. HouseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
- Bochicchio v. PetrocelliSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1940
- Douglass v. Boulevard Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1917
- Contino v. TurelloSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1924
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Mildred Ives v. W. T. Grant CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- State v. DeGennaroSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1960
- MONTGOMERY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS'N v. BaerDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1973
- Community Credit Union, Inc. v. ConnorsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1954
- Wesley v. DeFonce Contracting CorporationSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1966
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.