Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Williams

Decision Date28 September 1942
Docket Number35025.
Citation9 So.2d 638,193 Miss. 432
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesDEPOSIT GUARANTY BANK & TRUST CO. v. WILLIAMS.

Harold Cox and Butler & Snow, all of Jackson, for appellant.

S C. Broom and Harmon W. Broom, both of Jackson, and Milton Williams, of Memphis, Tenn., for appellee.

GRIFFITH Justice.

As shown by the statement of facts on the previous appeal of this case, Williams v. Deposit Guar. Bk. & Tr. Co., 190 Miss. 685, 1 So.2d 486, appellee had obtained numerous small loans from appellant bank during the period from August 1 1934, to August 1, 1937, in each of which the bank had made a charge of one dollar for thirty days, or more than 20%, if considered as interest, with the result that under § 1946, Code 1930, appellee would have been entitled, upon a suit instituted within the statutory period, to recover not only the interest paid but the principal as well.

The loans were handled by the bank in this manner in accordance with an asserted custom of banks to make a so-called service charge of $1 for these small short-time loans, and when the lawfulness thereof was challenged in Dickey v. Bank of Clarksdale, 183 Miss. 748, 184 So. 314, and the court held, as it was bound to hold under the then existing law that such transactions were usurious, and that instead of appealing to the court to uphold them the address should be to the legislative department, that address was made; and by Chap. 204, Laws 1940, the previous law was modified so as to allow all banks, state and national, to make the charges on small loans such as were made in the present case. In brief had Chap. 204, Laws 1940, been in existence at the time of the transactions here involved, they would have been entirely within the allowance of the law, and no question of usury could have arisen.

After the decision in Dickey v. Bank of Clarksdale, supra, appellee instituted this suit to recover principal and interest relying upon that case and the section of the statute as it stood before its modification by the subsequent enactment. On the first appeal the question was not raised that the new statute, which contains no saving clause, had the effect to nullify any right of action which existed under the previous statute, but the question has now been presented and elaborately briefed. The conclusion which we have reached on that issue makes it unnecessary to consider the several other questions presented by motions, special demurrers, etc.

Many decisions in this state have affirmed the rule, which generally prevails, that the effect of a repealing statute is to abrogate the repealed statute as completely as if it had never been passed, and that a statute modifying a previous statute has the same effect as though the statute had all the while previously existed in the same language as that contained in the modified statute, unless the repealing or modifying statute contains a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • American Sav. Life Ins. Co. v. Financial Affairs Management Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • September 20, 1973
    ...A thorough analysis of the issues involved when a usury statute is repealed or modified is also found in Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Williams, 193 Miss. 432, 9 So.2d 638 (1942). There the court again noted that an application to prior contracts did not impair the obligations of the......
  • Roper v. Consurve, Inc., Civ. A. No. J81-0508(W).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • June 15, 1990
    ...included in any repealed or modified statutes extinguished any accrued right in the usury statute. Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Williams, 193 Miss. 432, 9 So.2d 638 (Miss.1942). The Mississippi Supreme Court Many decisions in this state have affirmed the rule, which generally prevai......
  • Brown v. Brown, 90-CA-0071
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • December 27, 1990
    ...54 So. 805, 807 (1911). Still, not all remedial rules of law vest rights in protected parties. Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Williams, 193 Miss. 432, 439, 9 So.2d 638, 640 (1942). The term "automatic" comes to mind as we think of vested rights. When one claims a vested right in a lit......
  • Bologna Bros. v. Morrissey
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana (US)
    • May 21, 1963
    ...contracts are often treated as essentially procedural rather than substantive in their effects. See: Deposit Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Williams, 193 Miss. 432, 9 So.2d 638, 639 (1942); Corbin on Contracts, Vol. 6A, § 1484, p. We regard Section 2612 of the Mississippi Code of 1942 as a pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT