Gronert v. People
| Decision Date | 22 October 1934 |
| Docket Number | 13567. |
| Citation | 95 Colo. 508,37 P.2d 396 |
| Parties | GRONERT v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; Charles C Sackmann, Judge.
E. J Gronert was convicted of violating the Money Lenders Act, and he brings error.
Judgment reversed, and cause remanded, with direction.
Charles Rosenbaum, Hyman D. Landy, and Graham Susman, all of Denver for plaintiff in error.
Paul P. Prosser, Atty. Gen., and J. Glenn Donaldson and Charles H. Queary, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the People.
ADAMS C.J., did not participate.
E. J. Gronert was convicted of violating the Money Lenders Act (Sess. L. 1919, c. 159, p. 524, C. L. c. 63, § 3781 et seq.). He seeks a reversal of the sentence.
Gronert was charged in four counts, to wit: (1) With engaging in the business of making loans of less than $300 and charging, contracting for, and receiving a greater rate of interest than 12 per cent. per annum, without first obtaining a license; (2) with making a loan of less than $300 to Thelma C. Anderson and charging a greater rate of interest than 12 per cent. per annum; (3) with contracting with her for a greater rate of interest than 12 per cent. per annum for said loan; and (4) with receiving from her a greater rate of interest than 12 per cent. per annum for said loan. The first count charged a violation of section 1 (C. L. § 3781); the others, violations of section 17 (C. L. § 3797). He was found guilty on all counts.
Gronert's counsel contend that the Money Lenders Act is unconstitutional for two reasons, namely: (1) That on the passage of the bill through the Legislature its purpose was changed; (2) that the subject of the statute is not expressed in the title.
Section 17 of article 5 of the Colorado Constitution provides: '* * * no bill shall be so altered or amended on its passage through either house as to change its original purpose.'
The title of the bill, as it was when introduced in the Legislature, was as follows: 'A bill for an act to license and regulate the business of making loans in sums of five hundred dollars ($500) or less, secured or unsecured, at a greater rate of interest than twelve (12) per centum per annum, prescribing the rate of interest and charge therefor, and penalties for the violation thereof, and regulating the assignment of wages or salaries, earned or to be earned, when given as security for any such loan.'
Section 1 of the bill read: That no person, co-partnership, or corporation shall engage in the business of making loans of money, credit, goods, or things in action in the amount, or to the value of five hundred dollars ($500), or less, and charge, contract for, or receive a greater rate of interest than twelve (12) per centum per annum therefor, except as authorized by this Act and without first obtaining a license from the State Bank Commissioner hereinafter called the licensing official.'
Section 13 of the bill provided, in part: 'Every person, co-partnership and corporation licensed hereunder may loan any sum of money not exceeding in amount the sum of five hundred dollars ($500) and may charge, contract for and receive thereon interest at a rate not to exceed three (3) per centum per month on any loan less than one hundred dollars ($100) and not to exceed two (2) per centum per month on any loan of one hundred dollars ($100) or over.'
Section 17 of the bill read, in part:
The bill also contained, and the statute contains, provisions concerning license fees, bonds, revocation of licenses, keeping of records by licensees, and other regulations. Banks, trust companies, title guaranty companies, building and loan associations, and licensed pawnbrokers were excluded from the operation of the bill, and are excluded from the operation of the statute.
As it emerged from the Legislature, the title and sections 1 and 17, so far as important to this discussion, were substantially unchanged, exception the maximum amount of the small loans, which was changed from $500 to $300. A radical change, however, was made in section 13, which, as it appears in the statute, provides in part as follows (C. L. § 3793):
The purpose of the bill, as introduced, was to license the business of making small loans at a greater rate of interest than 12 per cent. per annum, and to regulate such business. A license is a permit to do a certain thing; it confers a right to do that which without the license would be unlawful. Parsons v. People, 32 Colo. 221, 76 P. 666; Antlers Athletic Association v. Hartung, 85 Colo. 125, 274 P. 831; People v. Raims, 20 Colo. 489, 39 P. 341; Board of County Commissioners v. Mayr, 31 Colo. 173, 74 P. 458; Schwartz v. People, 46 Colo. 239, 104 P. 92. The amendment of section 13 changed the original purpose of the bill, so as to forbid the licensing and regulating of the business of making small loans at interest greater than 1 per cent. per month. The statute, instead of regulating the business described in the title, prohibits it, and attempts to regulate the business of making small loans at interest less than 12 per cent. per annum. The business that the bill originally permitted is by the statute made a crime. Such a change or purpose comes within the inhibition of section 17 of article 5, supra.
The change referred to above also brings the statute into conflict with section 21 of article 5 of the Colorado Constitution,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Billis v. State
...title, and that the title is presumed to be the controlling and conclusive index of the legislative intent. See also Gronert v. People, 95 Colo. 508, 37 P.2d 396 (1934). The clearly expressed subject is a mandatory The fact is this: that whatever constitutional provision can be looked upon ......
-
Allied Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bell
...Constitution; Wells v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 19 S.W. 530, 110 Mo. l.c. 296; In re House Bill No. 231, 9 Colo. 624, 21 Pac. l.c. 472. Gronert v. People, 37 P.2d 396. (2) title to the act of the Sixtieth General Assembly (Laws 1939, p. 456), does not clearly express the subject of said act but on......
-
Lakewood Pawnbrokers, Inc. v. City of Lakewood
...act to make such loans at 3% Per month. Jones v. Parsons, 136 Colo. 434, 319 P.2d 480 (1957); Ray v. Denver, Supra; Gronert v. People, 95 Colo. 508, 37 P.2d 396 (1934). The ordinance is repugnant to the statute in that it prohibits what the statute expressly grants. Vela v. People, Supra; D......
-
A. D. Jones & Co. v. Parsons, 18036
...be unlawful.' People v. Raims, 20 Colo. 489, 39 P. 341, 342; Antlers Athletic Ass'n v. Hartung, 85 Colo. 125, 274 P. 831; Gronert v. People, 95 Colo. 508, 37 P.2d 396. This right is coextensive only with the duration of the license. Board of County Commissioners of Gunnison County v. Buckle......