Legal Opinion

Levitch v. Schaengold

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 7, 1931Published

1Opinion of the CourtHamilton, J.

The question here for determination is, whether or not Maurice Levitch under the facts stated can avail himself of the de-' fense of usury.

It is conceded that the fourth mortgage, which was in the sum of $4,500, was given as a bonus for procuring the loan of the third mortgage in the sum of $25,500. There is some evidence tending to show that the $4,500 note and mortgage were given for services in procuring the loan of $25,500. Whether or not the services would remove any taint of usury it is not necessary to determine in this case. No personal judgment is sought by the owners of the second,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Union National Bank v. International BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
  2. Stickney v. MooreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1895
  3. First State Bank v. NiklassonNebraska Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Ready v. HuebnerWisconsin Supreme Court · 1879
  5. J. W. Squire Co. v. HedgesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925

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

Powered by the Exa API