Reed v. Boston Loan Co.

35 N.E. 677, 160 Mass. 237, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 61
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided November 29, 1893·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Allen, J.

The amended declaration fails to show what the plaintiff seeks to recover. We understand, however, from the briefs and the oral discussion at the bar, that he has paid no more than he agreed to pay, but that by virtue of St. 1888, c. 388, he seeks to recover back some part of what he has paid, on the ground that he has paid more than the principal sum due, and interest at the rate of eighteen per cent per annum. The statute comes to the relief of borrowers of less than one thousand dollars at very high rates of interest, by authorizing them to discharge their debt by the payment of the principal sum actually borrowed and interest at eighteen per cent; but it does not authorize a recovery back of any sum which has been paid in excess thereof, nor make such payment illegal.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Reed v. Boston Loan Co., 35 N.E. 677, 160 Mass. 237, 1893 Mass. LEXIS 61 (Mass. 1893).

35 N.E. 677 (Reed v. Boston Loan Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

ROCKLAND-ATLAS NATIONAL BANK v. Murphy
110 N.E.2d 638 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1953)
Haverhill Fire Department Credit Union v. Rand
9 Mass. App. Div. 23 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1944)
Goodman Finance Co. v. Devine
2 Mass. App. Dec. 125 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1942)
Levin v. Wall
195 N.E. 790 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Koltin v. Brown
233 Mass. 16 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1919)
Shawmut Commercial Paper Co. v. Brigham
97 N.E. 636 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1912)