Mechanics' & Working-Men's Mutual Savings Bank & Building Ass'n v. Allen
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Bill for a forclosure. The plaintiffs were a corporation organized under the act authorizing the establishment of savings banks and. building associations, The mortgage had been made by the defendant Allen, who was at that time a member of the corporation, (the other defendant being a second mortgagee,) to secure a loan of $1,000 made to him by the plaintiffs on the 16th of February, 1863. For this loan a note had been given by him at the time, payable on demand, with…
Read the full summary
Bill for a forclosure. The plaintiffs were a corporation organized under the act authorizing the establishment of savings banks and. building associations, The mortgage had been made by the defendant Allen, who was at that time a member of the corporation, (the other defendant being a second mortgagee,) to secure a loan of $1,000 made to him by the plaintiffs on the 16th of February, 1863. For this loan a note had been given by him at the time, payable on demand, with interest, and a bonus of three-fourths of one per cent, per month in addition to the interest. By the statute above mentioned…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCurdy, J.
The restricting of the price to be paid for the use of money is everywhere a statutory regulation. In the absence of unfairness or oppression there is no more inherent wrong in receiving ten dollars for the loan of one hundred dollars for a year than in taking the same sum for the use of any other article.
By the law of 1850, the lender and borrower in certain cases were allowed, in addition to the regular rate of interest, to agree upon a bonus» to be paid for the money loaned. According to an understanding of this statute which prevailed throughout the state, it was generally arranged that…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Inhabitants of Goshen v. Inhabitants of StoningtonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Mechanics & Working Men's Mutual Savings Bank v. WilcoxSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1855
- Warden of Bridgeport v. HubbellSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1824
3Cited by25 opinions
- Ewell v. DaggsSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- Sanger v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1938
- Leach v. Commercial Savings BankSupreme Court of Iowa · 1927
- Willcox v. EdwardsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1912
- Montgomery v. Town of BranfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1928
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.