Legal Opinion

Skinner v. Cederberg

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided January 29, 1945PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order dismissing report affirmed. After a finding for the plaintiff upon a demand note for $340, dated December 20, 1940, given him by the defendant, the defendant urged before the Appellate Division and before this court on appeal that the note was void because the agreed interest exceeded the rate allowed by G. L. (Ter. Ed.) e. 140, §§ 96-112. Cuneo v. Bornstein, 269 Mass. 232. That statute does not apply to loans exceeding $300, nor to loans made by a person who does not “directly or indirectly engage in the business of mating loans of three hundred dollars or less.” § 96. Goodowsky v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cuneo v. BornsteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
  2. Commonwealth v. WhiteMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1927
  3. Goodowsky v. RubensteinMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1917
  4. Commonwealth v. SovrenskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Skinner v. KapplesMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1946
  2. Commonwealth v. Security Acceptance Corp.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1966

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

Powered by the Exa API