Legal Opinion · Dissent

McConnell v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

California Supreme Court

Decided May 30, 1978No. L.A. 30795Published

1DissentClark, J.

I dissent. The second amended complaint states a cause of action neither for unlawful compounding of interest nor for usury. It is evident the complaint cannot be amended to state a cause of action. The judgment of dismissal should be affirmed.

Compound Interest

The trial court properly sustained demurrer to the compound interest causes of action of the second amended complaint.

Section 2 of the Usury Law provides that interest shall not be compounded unless an agreement to that effect is clearly expressed in writing. The second amended complaint alleges that plaintiffs and the members of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thomassen v. CarrCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967
  2. Arneill Ranch v. PetitCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1976
  3. Lewis v. Pacific States Savings & Loan Co.California Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Ricord v. AragonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

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

Powered by the Exa API