Case ID: f2d_202/html/0954-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth S. THOMSON, Appellant, v. HER-BERICH-HALL-HARTER COMPANY, Appellee.
    No. 11665.
    United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.
    Feb. 19, 1953.
    Edward I. Wallach, Hugh Wells and Joseph Dembe, Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.
    Herberich, Rowley & Taylor, Akron, Ohio, for appellee.
    Before ALLEN, MARTIN and McAL-LISTER, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard on the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;

And it appearing that the findings of fact made by the District Court are supported by the record; that no compensable service was performed by the appellant to justify the so-called “commission” in connection with the mortgage loan involved in the trustee’s petition to sell real estate; and that the loan was usurious within the purview of Sections 8303 and 8306, Ohio General Code; but that the numerous other loans made by appellee to appellant had been paid and cancelled on or before July 31, 1947 and do not constitute a continuing transaction between the parties;

It is ordered that the judgment be and it hereby is affirmed for the reasons stated in the memorandum opinion of the District Court. In re Proteau, 110 F.S.upp. 904.