Connecticut Statutes
§ 37-8 — Actions not to be brought on prohibited loans.
Connecticut § 37-8
JurisdictionConnecticut
Title 37Interest
This text of Connecticut § 37-8 (Actions not to be brought on prohibited loans.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 37-8 (2026).
Text
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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Mildred Ives v. W. T. Grant Company
522 F.2d 749 (Second Circuit, 1975)
Solevo v. Aldens, Inc.
395 F. Supp. 861 (D. Connecticut, 1975)
Scientific Products v. Cyto Medical Laboratory, Inc.
457 F. Supp. 1373 (D. Connecticut, 1978)
In re Feldman
259 F. Supp. 218 (D. Connecticut, 1966)
Washington v. House of God Outreach, No. Cv99 036 75 59 S (Jul. 16, 2002)
2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 9182 (Connecticut Superior Court, 2002)
Legislative History
(1949 Rev., S. 6783.) Cited. 111 C. 87; 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. 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 78-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; 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; 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.
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
Connecticut § 37-8, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/statute/ct/37-8.