Legal Opinion
Bochicchio v. Petrocelli
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided February 7, 1940PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAvery, J.
The plaintiff brought this action to recover on two notes. Their execution is admitted. The defense was that the notes were given in substitution of an original note for more than the amount loaned, with the intent to evade the provisions of the statutes against usury. The facts as shown by the finding are these: On May 18, 1925, Carmelio Bochicchio loaned Teresina A. Petrocelli $1500, and on the same day she gave him her note for $1650, payable on demand with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, and to secure the note she mortgaged to him her home. Thereafter, on April 11, 1934,…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Kanopka v. KanopkaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1931
- Brown v. Marion National BankSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- King v. SpencerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1932
- Sawdey v. Spokane Falls & Northern Railway Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
- Atlas Realty Corporation v. HouseSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- State v. RodriguezSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1980
- Piantedosi v. FloridiaSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1982
- Peiter v. DegenringSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1949
- Shorr v. SkafteSupreme Court of Florida · 1956
- United Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. Progress Builders, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1992
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.