STATE STATUTES & CODES
- Alabama
- Alaska
- Arizona
- Arkansas
- California
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- District of Columbia
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
CONNECTICUT STATUTES AND CODES
Sec. 37-8. Actions not to be brought on prohibited loans.
Sec. 37-8. Actions not to be brought on prohibited loans. No action shall be
brought to recover principal or interest, or any part thereof, on any loan prohibited by
sections 37-4, 37-5 and 37-6, or upon any cause arising from the negotiation of such loan.
(1949 Rev., S. 6783.)
Cited. 111 C. 87. Cited. 120 C. 665. Acceptance of note appearing to be usurious on its face is not sufficient to invoke ban of this section; intent to evade Sec. 37-4 must also be proved. 118 C. 4. Voluntary taking or reservation of more than legal interest is per se usurious; specific intent to violate Sec. 37-4 is not essential. 123 C. 94; 130 C. 552. Where no evidence is offered to explain difference between amount of note and actual loan, court may justifiably find note usurious. 126 C. 339. Statute makes no distinction between rights of an accommodation party who has participated in the usurious transaction and one who has not. 138 C. 636. Cited. 139 C. 425. See notes to Secs. 37-4, 37-5. Where note which would be usurious in Connecticut was executed in New York and payable there, action could be brought thereon in Connecticut, since controlling statute re usury was that of New York. 149 C. 9. Same result where note was executed in Connecticut for convenience of defendant cosigner but delivery was in Massachusetts. Id., 159. Where lender was a seventy-eight-year-old woman and borrower, an astute businessman, persuaded her not to seek legal counsel and to accept his note in an usurious amount, action on note allowed. 153 C. 400, 406. Cited. 193 C. 304. Cited. 211 C. 613.
Cited. 3 CA 306. Provisions of this statute and Sec. 37-4 bar a deficiency judgment in this case. 6 CA 691. Cited. 21 CA 131. Cited. 44 CA 439; Id., 471.
A conditional bill of sale given to avoid the usury statute is void. 1 CS 160. A first mortgage given to secure the performance of an illegal and unenforceable loan is equally ineffective. 8 CS 245. Cited. 33 CS 554.
(1949 Rev., S. 6783.)
Cited. 111 C. 87. Cited. 120 C. 665. Acceptance of note appearing to be usurious on its face is not sufficient to invoke ban of this section; intent to evade Sec. 37-4 must also be proved. 118 C. 4. Voluntary taking or reservation of more than legal interest is per se usurious; specific intent to violate Sec. 37-4 is not essential. 123 C. 94; 130 C. 552. Where no evidence is offered to explain difference between amount of note and actual loan, court may justifiably find note usurious. 126 C. 339. Statute makes no distinction between rights of an accommodation party who has participated in the usurious transaction and one who has not. 138 C. 636. Cited. 139 C. 425. See notes to Secs. 37-4, 37-5. Where note which would be usurious in Connecticut was executed in New York and payable there, action could be brought thereon in Connecticut, since controlling statute re usury was that of New York. 149 C. 9. Same result where note was executed in Connecticut for convenience of defendant cosigner but delivery was in Massachusetts. Id., 159. Where lender was a seventy-eight-year-old woman and borrower, an astute businessman, persuaded her not to seek legal counsel and to accept his note in an usurious amount, action on note allowed. 153 C. 400, 406. Cited. 193 C. 304. Cited. 211 C. 613.
Cited. 3 CA 306. Provisions of this statute and Sec. 37-4 bar a deficiency judgment in this case. 6 CA 691. Cited. 21 CA 131. Cited. 44 CA 439; Id., 471.
A conditional bill of sale given to avoid the usury statute is void. 1 CS 160. A first mortgage given to secure the performance of an illegal and unenforceable loan is equally ineffective. 8 CS 245. Cited. 33 CS 554.
Connecticut Forms by Issue
Connecticut Court Forms
Connecticut Law
Connecticut State Laws
Connecticut Court
Connecticut Agencies
Connecticut Court Map
Tips