Cole v. Franklin Plan Co, 9091

• Decision Date: 22 February 1933
• Docket Number: No. 9091,9091
• Citation: 168 S.E. 261,176 Ga. 561
• Parties: COLE et al. v. FRANKLIN PLAN CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

176 Ga. 561

168 S.E. 261

COLE et al.

v.FRANKLIN PLAN CO.

No. 9091

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 22, 1933

.

.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Floyd County; James Maddox, Judge.

Petition for injunction by Pete R. Cole and another against the Franklin Plan Company. Demurrer to petition was sustained, petition was dismissed, and plaintiffs bring error.

Affirmed.

M. B. Eubanks, of Rome, for plaintiffs in error.

Wright & Covington, of Rome, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

ATKINSON, Justice.

Pete R. Cole and J. P. Primm brought a petition for injunction against the Franklin Plan Company, a corporation, alleging that the defendant was engaged in the money-lending business under the terms of the act of 1920 (Ga. Laws 1920, p. 215 et seq.), charging interest at 3% per cent, per month. The defendant filed a demurrer on general and special grounds. The exception is to an order sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the petition. It is stated in the brief of the attorney for the plaintiff that "all questions made in the record, except that which relates to the act of 1920 violating and contravening the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, in that it denies the equal protection of the laws, are waived, " and a decision on this question alone is asked for. It is alleged that the act of 1920 (Ga. Laws 1920, p. 215 et seq.), commonly known as the Small Loan Law, is unconstitutional and void, because it is in violation of and repugnant to the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, " for the following reasons, to wit: That a person borrowing the sum of $300 from the defendant may, under the terms of said act, be compelled to pay 42 per cent, interest per annum, while a person borrowing $301 can be charged but 8 per cent, interest per annum, and a person borrowing $300 from defendant may be required to pay 42 per cent, per annum interest, while a person borrowing from a licensed bank or a private person a similar amount cannot be charged in excess of 8 per cent, interest per annum; that the act denies equal protection of the laws to all persons, firms, and corporations not doing business under its terms; that banks, state and national, building and loan associations, and licensed pawnbrokers are excepted from the operation of the act; that, while their business is that of...