Legal Opinion

Cuneo v. Bornstein

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided November 26, 1929PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarroll, J.

This is an appeal by the defendant Glickman from a final decree ordering the cancellation of certain notes, executed by the plaintiffs, for money loaned in violation of the small loans act, G. L. c. 140, § 96, and declaring that the notes were wholly void.

It was found by the master that Glickman was a holder in due course; that he purchased the notes in question for $700, which was a fair price, and that he was ignorant of “the circumstances under which the Realty Investment Company purchased the notes or the price which it paid for them.”

G. L. c. 140, § 96, prohibits one from engaging in the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Trust Co. v. KrumseigSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
  2. Sabine v. . PaineNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
  3. Commonwealth v. McClanahanCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859
  4. Eskridge v. ThomasWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1916
  5. Kelly-Buckley Co. v. CohenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Begelfer v. NajarianMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  2. Tilton v. City of HaverhillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
  3. State Ex Rel. Beck v. Associates Discount Corp.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1956
  4. Greenleaf Finance Co. v. SMALL LOANS REGULATORY BOARDMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1979
  5. Bernhardt v. Atlantic Finance Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API