Richmond v. Conservative Credit Sys. of N.J.

• Decision Date: 31 January 1933
• Docket Number: Nos. 133, 134.,s. 133, 134.
• Citation: 164 A. 563
• Parties: RICHMOND v. CONSERVATIVE CREDIT SYSTEM OF NEW JERSEY (two cases).
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

164 A. 563

RICHMOND

v. CONSERVATIVE CREDIT SYSTEM OF NEW JERSEY (two cases).

Nos. 133, 134.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Jan. 31, 1933.

Syllabus by the Court.

Section 5 of the Small Loan Act, P. L. 1914, pp. 75, 78, P. L. 1928, p. 497, § 1, provides that "no charges, bonus, fees, expense or demands of any nature whatsoever other than interest as above provided shall be made upon such loans or advancements except upon the actual foreclosure of the security or upon the entry of judgment." Held, that a clause in the note providing for attorney's fee "upon the entry of judgment" was not in violation of the statute, and created no forfeiture thereunder.

DONGES, BROGAN, and KERNEY, JJ., dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Separate actions by Lewis Richmond and by Barney Richmond, against the Conservative Credit System of New Jersey. Judgments of the district court in favor of the plaintiff in each case were affirmed by the Supreme Court (157 A. 448, 10 N. J. Misc. 14), and the defendant appeals.

Judgments reversed, and judgment entered in favor of the defendant in each case.

Jacob S. Glickenhaus and Hugo Woerner, both of Newark, for appellant.

Robert E. Pollan, of Passaic, for respondents.

PARKER, Justice.

We concur substantially in the views expressed by the Supreme Court on all points except the first, that the defendant did not violate the statute either in the notes or statements. The "brief" for the respondents is merely a memorandum that they rely on the per curiam opinion of the Supreme Court. Obviously they make no claim of illegality except what the Supreme Court undertakes to point out: and we are not required to search for defects in the note not presented to the Supreme Court and not presented here.

The case arises under the Small Loan Act of 1914 as amended in 1928 (P. L. 1914, p. 75, P. L. 1928, p. 497). The statute is very drastic, and, like some of the usury laws of other states, enacts a forfeiture of principal and interest if the lender stray from the straight and narrow path, and permits the borrower to recover back at any time what he has paid for either principal or interest, leaving the lender shorn of all. The act has been vigorously enforced by the courts, as the cases cited by the Supreme Court, and others not so cited, will indicate.

The Supreme Court held that the notes involved here are similar to those considered in Consolidated Plan v. Shanholtz, 147 A. 401, 7 N. J. Misc. 876, and Morris Plan v. Schwartz, 150 A. 390, 8 N. J. Misc. 417. The per curiam in the latter case does not set out the language of the note; but with respect to the clause relating to attorney's fee and percentage in case of default, it will be...