Legal Opinion
Lorber v. Marshall
Oregon Supreme Court
Decided February 10, 1928PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCoshow, J.
Requisites for the presence of usury-are enumerated as follows in 39 Cye. 919, paragraph D-l:
“(1) An unlawful intent; (2) the subject matter must be money or money’s equivalent; (3) a loan or forbearance; (4) the sum loaned must be absolutely, not contingently, repayable; and (5) there must be an exaction for the use of the loan of something in excess of what is allowed by law.”
To the same effect, see Teshner v. Roome, 106 Or. 382, 395 (210 Pac. 160, 212 Pac. 473); Coast Finance Corp. v. Powers, 105 Or. 339, 343 (209 Pac. 614, 21 A. L. R. 855); Farrell v. Kirkwood, 69 Or. 413 (139 Pac. 110);…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Balfour v. DavisOregon Supreme Court · 1886
- Coast Finance Corp. v. Powers Furniture Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Teshner v. RoomeOregon Supreme Court · 1922
- Anderson v. GriffithOregon Supreme Court · 1908
- Farrell v. KirkwoodOregon Supreme Court · 1914
3Cited by6 opinions
- Federal Mortg. Co. v. DavisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1936
- Fikes v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of AnchorageAlaska Supreme Court · 1975
- Empire Building Supply, Inc. v. EKO Investments, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1979
- Davis v. Federal Mortgage Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1938
- Reynolds Mortgage Co. v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1933
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.