Meredith v. Cabell

D.C. Circuit

Meredith v. Cabell

211 F.2d 810, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 73, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2628

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedApril 15, 1954

Docket11973_1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 211 F.2d 810 (Meredith v. Cabell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meredith v. Cabell, 211 F.2d 810, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 73, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2628 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 F.2d 810, 94 U.S. App. D.C. 73, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 2628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meredith-v-cabell-cadc-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack