Dewey v. Richardson
| Decision Date | 18 October 1910 |
| Citation | 206 Mass. 430,92 N.E. 708 |
| Parties | DEWEY v. RICHARDSON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Harry Bergson, for appellant.
W. A Parker, for appellee.
The only question in this case is whether St. 1908, c. 605, §§ 1 to 6, which provides for the regulation of the business of making small loans, is constitutional. The loans referred to are of $200 or less, upon which a rate of interest greater than 12 per cent. per annum is charged, and for which no security other than a note or contract, with or without an indorser, is taken. The Legislature evidently had in mind the danger that such a business, if left without regulation would be conducted oppressively, and the statute was enacted with a view to furnish a degree of protection to borrowers. Similar provisions have been enacted in regard to conducting the business of a pawnbroker, and in regard to conducting the business of making loans secured by mortgage or pledge of household furniture or other personal property exempt from attachment, for less than $200, or at a rate of interest greater than 12 per cent. Rev. Laws, c. 102, §§ 33, 39, 57 66. If there is danger of oppression in carrying on a business of this kind, the Legislature, in the exercise of the police power, may regulate it by statute, in the interest of the people who may be liable to such oppression. The regulation of the exercise of private rights has been considered by this court in many cases. Mutual Loan Company v. Martell, 200 Mass. 482, 86 N.E. 916, 128 Am. St. Rep. 446; Com. v. Strauss, 191 Mass. 545, 78 N.E. 136, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 968; Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364, 79 N.E. 745, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1160, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523; Com. v. Pear, 183 Mass. 242, 66 N.E. 719, 67 L. R. A. 935. We cannot say that the Legislature might not properly determine that carrying on such a business for gain calls for regulation, and might not accordingly provide that no one should engage in the business unless duly licensed. It was decided that the similar statute relative to engaging in the business of a pawnbroker was constitutional. Com. v. Danziger, 176 Mass. 290, 57 N.E. 461.
The plaintiff attacks particularly the requirement that the licensing officer or board shall from time to time establish regulations respecting the business, and the rate of interest to be charged, having due regard to the amount of the loan and the time for which it is made. Under this section, the rate of interest prescribed may be different in one city or town from that in another. The right of the Legislature to delegate to a local board the making of regulations under statutes has long been recognized in this commonwealth, as property founded on the principle of local self-government, which has been a part of the law of New England from the earliest times. Brodbine v. Revere, 182 Mass. 598, 66 N.E. 607; Welch v. Swasey, 193 Mass. 364, 79 N.E. 745, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1160, 118 Am. St. Rep. 523...
To continue reading
Request your trial