Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite General Securities Co. v. Jumonville, 44 So. 2d 702.

17 citing documents.

Smith v. Ducote 398 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
People's Nat. Bank of New Iberia v. Smith 360 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1978
(1950) was confronted with a note discounted at 11% of its face value providing for 8% from date of maturity (as in our case).
Paulat v. Pirello 353 So. 2d 1307 La. 1977
General Securities Co., , (1950).
Paulat v. Pirello 345 So. 2d 527 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
The purpose of this article was to authorize the “capitalizing of interest.” In General Securities Co., , (1950), the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether or not a note which had been discounted at 11% of its face value and which provided for 8% interest from maturity was usurious.
International Harvester Credit Corp. v. McGill 297 So. 2d 272 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
Budget Plan of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Talbert 276 So. 2d 297 La. 1973
1021 , (1960); General Securities Co., , (1950).
Thrift Funds of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Jones 274 So. 2d 150 La. 1973
See: General Securities Company v. Jumonville, *155 , (1950); Huntington v. Westerfield, 119 La.
Grunewald v. Bartholomew 269 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1972
[3] See, for example, , ; Capitol Loans, Inc. v. Williams, La.App., ; Soab v. Murphy, La.App., ; Williams v. Alphonse Mortgage Co., La.App., ; Hailes v. Hynson, 12 Orleans App. 327; and Heymann v. Reynolds, 12 Orleans App. 287.
Thrift Funds of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Jones 259 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
407 (1888); General Securities Co., , (1950).
Capitol Loans, Inc. v. Williams 251 So. 2d 528 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Art. 2924, decrying the holding of the Supreme Court in the case of General Securities Finance Co., Inc. v. *530 Jumonville, , (1950) in its interpretation of capitalized interest or discount as not being subject to the laws of usury under the language of said Art. 2924 of the Civil Code.
State v. Heymann 235 So. 2d 78 La. 1970
1021 , ; , ; Clasen v. Excel Finance Causeway, Inc., La.App., , cert.
Time Finance Co. v. Louis 152 So. 2d 248 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
1021 , ; Jefferson Securities Co. v. Benoit, La.App., ; , 44 So.
Williams v. Alphonse Mortgage Co. 144 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
1021 , ; , ; Jefferson Securities Co. v. Benoit, La.App.
Mayfield v. Nunn 121 So. 2d 65 La. 1960
There are two recent cases dealing with the subject: General Securities Co., Inc. v. Jumonville, 1950, , , concerned a note acquired by a finance company at a discount of 11% of its face value, but conditioned to bear interest at 8% from maturity; the first exception under Article 2924 was not alluded to by the Court, but the note was held to come under the second exception, with the observation
Jefferson Securities Co. v. Benoit 92 So. 2d 487 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
debt for the payment of money, notwithstanding such promissory note, bond or other written evidence of debt for the payment of money may include a greater rate of interest or discount than eight per cent per annum; provided such obligation shall not bear more than eight per cent per annum after maturity until paid.” This same defense was urged in General Securities Co., Inc., v. Jumonville, La., .
Vosbein v. Leopold 87 So. 2d 715 La. 1956
Home Finance Co. v. Padgett 54 So. 2d 813 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1951
"Plaintiff has cited the case of General Securities Company, , , as authority for his contention that it is perfectly legal for a finance company to purchase at discount a note payable to bearer and recover the full face amount of the note.