Legal Opinion

Katz v. Fischel

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided June 28, 1940PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Per curiam

The admitted promise to pay the plaintiff $500 in consideration of the loan of 2,400 reichmarks was not shown to be usurious under the law of Germany, where the transaction took place. Nor was there any evidence that the loan was made in Germany in order to avoid the law of usury prevailing in this State. *590Under the circumstances, the mere fact that repayment was to be made in this State furnishes insufficient basis for invalidating the loan as illegal under our usury statutes. (66 C. J. p. 150, § 21; Id. p. 151, § 22; Bank of Georgia v. Lewin, 45 Barb. 340; Hooley v. Talcott, 129 App. Div.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Bank of Georgia v. LewinNew York Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Hooley v. TalcottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. North American Bank, Ltd. v. Schulman, New York County Courts1984
  2. People v. ValcarcelNew York Court of General Session of the Peace · 1958

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

Powered by the Exa API