Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Chadwick v. Menard Bros., 104 La. 38.

18 citing documents.

Peyton Place, Condominium Associates, Inc. v. Guastella 18 So. 3d 132 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
Broussard v. Crochet, Broussard & Co. 477 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Budget Plan of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Talbert 276 So. 2d 297 La. 1973
Thrift Funds of Baton Rouge, Inc. v. Jones 274 So. 2d 150 La. 1973
Miley v. Steedley 269 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Berger v. DeSalvo 156 So. 2d 323 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1963
The general rule is well settled that bonus payments for extensions constitute interest and, if the interest so paid exceeds the legal maximum, usury; , 28 So.
Williams v. Alphonse Mortgage Co. 144 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Mayfield v. Nunn 121 So. 2d 65 La. 1960
Chadwick v. Menard, 1900, , 28 So.
Florane v. Conway 111 So. 2d 149 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
68 ; Chadwick v. Menard Bros., 1901, , 28 So.
Vosbein v. Leopold 87 So. 2d 715 La. 1956
General Securities Co. v. Jumonville 44 So. 2d 702 La. 1950
Commonwealth Finance Co. v. Livingston 12 So. 2d 44 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1943
Unity Plan Finance Co. v. Green 148 So. 297 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
Church v. Winship 144 So. 585 La. 1932
Justice Land, speaking for the court, said: “It is well settled, as contended by relator, that a note given as a mere bonus for the extension of time of payment of the original note or obligation cannot be recovered by the lender, when in excess of the conventional rate of interest; that such bonus is excessive and usurious, and is not considered a legal cbnsideration,” , 28 So.
Robinson Lumber Co. v. Tracka & Boudreau 137 So. 853 La. 1931
Rapides Grocery Co. v. Clopton 131 So. 734 La. 1930
Ann. 141 , citing Troplong, Prescriptions, No. 833; , 28 So.
Huntington v. Westerfield 44 So. 317 La. 1907
* * * Under this condition of things, the pleaded prescription [of one year] is applicable.” , 28 South.
Huntington v. Westerfield 2 Teiss. 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1905
If the evidence establishes conditions and circumstances similar to those that were presented in Chadwick vs. Menard, , then may it not be said that it is irrelevant because it cannot assist in the decision of the cause.