No person and no firm or corporation, or agent thereof, shall, with intent to evade the provisions of section
37-4, accept a note or notes for a greater amount than that actually loaned.
(1949 Rev., S. 6780.)
Unlawful intent as well as acceptance must be proved. 94 C. 148; 101 C. 558; 118 C. 4. Intent to violate statute as a matter of law. 130 C. 552. Cited. 113 C. 571; 117 C. 255; 120 C. 665; 123 C. 95; 126 C. 338. Transactions between plaintiff and defendant were sales of notes and contracts and not usurious even though interest exceeded 12 per cent. 139 C. 424. Cited. 145 C. 465. Unless the difference between the actual amount of the loan and the face amount of the note are explained to show that interest does not exceed 12 per cent, the loan is per se usurious and in violation of Sec. 37-4. 151 C. 21. Where lender was a 78-year-old woman and borrower, an astute businessman, persuaded lender not to seek legal counsel and to accept his note in an usurious amount, held no intent to evade provisions of Sec. 37-4. 153 C. 400. Cited. 172 C. 395; 188 C. 477; 211 C. 613.
Cited. 6 CA 691; 21 CA 131.
Cited. 1 CS 160. Does not apply to any loan made by any national bank or any state bank or trust company incorporated in Connecticut. 32 CS 245.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases, 1961–2012 · leading case:
Gordon v. Tufano, 450 A.2d 852 (Conn. 1982).
Gordon v. Tufano, 450 A.2d 852 (Conn. 1982).
· cites it 14× “Finally, he claims that the trial court abused its discretion in holding that the mortgage note was void and unenforceable because it violated the provisions of General Statutes §§ 37-5 and 37-9 when neither party raised the issue of usury, illegality or unconscionability…”
Greglon Indus., Inc. v. Bowman, 572 A.2d 369 (Conn. App. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 8× “3 They argue that under General Statutes § 37-4; see footnote 2, supra; a stated interest rate of more than 12 percent is per se usurious, and a lack of intent by the lender to charge in excess of the lawful rate of interest is irrelevant. The defendants contend that a lender’s…”
Haworth v. Dieffenbach, 38 A.3d 1203 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Section 37-5 prohibits a lender from circumventing the 37-4 interest cap by accepting either a noninterest-bearing note or a low interest-bearing note whose actual rate of interest is greater than 12 percent.”
In re Lico Mfg. Co., 201 F. Supp. 899 (D. Conn. 1961).
· cites it 2× “The applicable provisions of Connecticut law under this prong of the Trustee’s attack are § 37-4, § 37-5, and § 37-9 of the Connecticut General Statutes (Rev.”
Golden v. Lyons, 193 A.2d 487 (Conn. 1963).
· cites it 2× “The court, in accepting the plaintiff’s statements as to his intentions concerning the interest to be paid on the note, overlooked an important differ *26 ence between § 37-4 and § 37-5 of the General Statutes. For a violation of § 37-5, it is necessary to show that a note was…”
Wesley v. DeFonce Contracting Corp., 216 A.2d 811 (Conn. 1966).
“And § 37-5 provides that no person “shall, with intent to evade the provisions of section 37-4, accept a note or notes for a greater amount than that actually loaned”.”
Greer v. United States, 448 F.2d 937 (4th Cir. 1971).
“But in many states the rule at common law is to the contrary and requires a determination of the portion of the stock dividend attributable to income and the portion attributable to corpus and the various portions to be charged accordingly.”
State Nat'l Bank v. Cohen, 349 A.2d 729 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1975).
“But § 37-9 states in plain language that § 37-4, as well as § 37-5, does not apply, inter alia, to “any loan made by any national bank or any bank or trust company incorporated under the laws of this state.”
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-5(a): 1 case
Greer v. United States, 448 F.2d 937 (4th Cir. 1971).
“But in many states the rule at common law is to the contrary and requires a determination of the portion of the stock dividend attributable to income and the portion attributable to corpus and the various portions to be charged accordingly.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.