Northway Lanes v. Hackley Union National Bank & Trust Co.

464 F.2d 855 (1972)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Northway Lanes v. Hackley Union National Bank & Trust Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
464 F.2d 855 (1972)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

Under the National Bank Act, if a national bank engaged in usury, or charged an excessive interest rate on a loan, the borrower could bring an action for double the amount of interest. Ralph Kuris and Bessie Shull comprised a copartnership, Northway Lanes (plaintiff), a bowling alley. Northway Lanes borrowed $600,000 from Hackley Union National Bank & Trust Company (Hackley) (defendant) for construction and operation of the bowling alley. The loan was split into two notes, a mortgage note and an installment note. The mortgage note was for $350,000 at 7 percent interest to be repaid over seven years. The installment note was for $337,500, which included $87,500 in interest reserved in advance by Hackley to be repaid over five years. The interest for the installment note was calculated at 7 percent of the principal amount multiplied by five years. The maximum rate of interest for commercial real estate loans permitted under Michigan law was 7 percent. Hackley charged Northway Lanes $1,595 to cover the closing costs of the loans. Collecting closing costs on loans was a standard, legal practice for savings-and-loan associations in Michigan. Hackley also imposed a $30,000 prepayment charge to the terms of the notes. Later, Kuris and Shull created Marshull, Incorporated (plaintiff) and conveyed the real estate owned by Northway Lanes to Marshull. Marshull paid both notes in full. Subsequently, Kuris and Shull as Northway Lanes brought an action in the district court, alleging that the interest reserved in advance, the imposition of closing costs, and the prepayment charge each constituted usurious interest in violation of the National Bank Act. The district court entered judgment in favor of Hackley. Northway Lanes and Marshull appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rubin, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership