In Coe v. Muller, 74 Fla. 399, 77 So. 88, the court held that the repeal of usury laws without a saving clause operates retrospectively so as to cut off the defense of usury for the future, even in actions upon contracts previously made.
Summary of this case from Cloone v. Minot Building & Loan Ass'nJune, 1934.
Present — Finch, P.J., Merrell, Townley, Glennon and Untermyer, JJ.
Motion for reargument denied.
In Coe v. Muller, 74 Fla. 399, 77 So. 88, the court held that the repeal of usury laws without a saving clause operates retrospectively so as to cut off the defense of usury for the future, even in actions upon contracts previously made.
Summary of this case from Cloone v. Minot Building & Loan Ass'nFull title:ELIZABETH COE MULLER v. EMIL A. MULLER
Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Date published: Jun 1, 1934
Thirdly, the contention of the appellee, at least insofar as it urges that the contract was illegal at the…
Staros v. Avalon Shores, Inc.Such being the case, the penal provisions of the statute, including the provision for forfeiture of both the…