Legal Opinion
Mortgage Associates, Inc. v. Siverhus
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Decided June 4, 1974No. 152PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BeilfüSS, J.
The two primary issues on appeal are:(1) Was the promissory note a forbearance calling for usurious interest in violation of the usury statute 1 or was it a time-price differential transaction?(2) Was the assignee of the note a holder in due course?
“Usury” defined in the most simple terms is interest upon a loan or forbearance in excess of that permitted by law. Clearly this transaction was not a loan. If the difference between the cash price and time payment price was interest it was a forbearance and because it amounted to about 16 percent per annum it was in violation of our…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hogg v. RuffnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- State v. J. C. Penney Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1970
- Warden v. Board of SupervisorsWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
- Zang v. SchumannWisconsin Supreme Court · 1952
- Muscoda State Bank v. KolarWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
3Cited by8 opinions
- State v. MonahanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
- State v. RussellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1973
- Circle v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
- Kane v. KrollCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1995
- Roy M. Circle and Wanda J. Circle, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., a Corporation, Rayfield Smiley and Evelyn C. Smiley, on Behalf of Themselves and Others Similarly Situated v. Mid-State Homes, Inc., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.