MEREDITH ET AL.
v.
CABELL ET AL.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the loan transaction was usurious and the trial court's judgment, calculating the amount due and allowing foreclosure, was appropriate.
The appellee and her deceased husband executed promissory notes secured by deeds of trust. The appellant, Meredith, was found to have knowingly lent t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Deed Of Trust cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellee, Mrs. Alice B. Cabell, and her husband, who is now dead, were the makers of promissory notes aggregating $10,200, secured by deeds of trust on realty. The payee of the notes endorsed them to the appellant, Maurice M. Meredith.
In this suit the loan transaction was attacked as usurious. The District Court found Meredith was not, as he claimed, a holder in due course for value without notice, but that he had actually and knowingly lent the money to the Cabells and had used the payee as an intermediary to avoid the usury statute, § 28-2703, D.C.Code 1951. It was also found that Meredith had advanced to the Cabells in return for the notes only the sum of $7,510, of which $5,476.10 had been repaid, leaving a balance of $2,033.-28 due the creditor. Having so found, the District Court adjudged that, unless the unpaid balance were paid within thirty days, the trustees designated in the deeds of trust might sell the property to satisfy the amount found to be due.
The findings of fact were supported by the evidence and the judgment gave relief appropriate in the circumstances. It follows that Meredith’s appeal must fail.
Affirmed.