Shanks v. St. Joseph Finance & Loan Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 20253.,20253. |
| Citation | 170 S.W.2d 135 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ORVILLE SHANKS, APPELLANT, v. ST. JOSEPH FINANCE & LOAN COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. |
Appeal from Buchanan Circuit Court. — Hon. Emmett J. Crouse, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Horace Merritt and W.C. Meyer for appellant.
Roy McKittrick, Attorney-General, and Covell R. Hewitt, Assistant Attorney-General, for Amicus Curiae.
No brief for appellant.
Alva F. Lindsay, David B. Lichtenstein, R. Bruce Snow and George L. Gisler for respondent.
(1) Plaintiff's contentions that the lower court erred in giving certain instructions and in refusing others and in overruling plaintiff's motion for new trial are not before this court because no final bill of exceptions has ever been prepared, allowed or filed. Electrolytic Chlorine Co. v. Wallace & Tiernan Co., 328 Mo. 782, 41 S.W. (2d) 1049. (2) The small loan laws are not unconstitutional as being in violation of the constitutional provisions voiding local or special laws fixing the rate of interest. Gallert, Small Loan Legislation, pp. 18 to 112, N.Y., 1932, Russell Sage Foundation; Nugent, The Loan Shark Problem, 8 Law and Contemporary Problems (1941), pp. 3 to 14; Kelso, Social and Economic Background of the Small Loan Problem, 8 Law and Contemporary Problems (1941), pages 14 to 23; Hubachek, The Development of Regulatory Small Loan Laws, 8 Law and Contemporary Problems (1941), pages 108 to 146; Kelleher v. Minshull (Wash.), 119 Pac. (2d) 302; People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 159, 118 N.E. 87; Harbison v. Stamer, 281 Ill. 450, 118 N.E. 94; Commonwealth v. Puder, 261 Pa. St. 129, 104 Atl. 505; Wheeler v. Remedial Loan Co., 261 Pa. St. 139, 104 Atl. 508; Badger v. State, 154 Ga. 443, 114 S.E. 635; Morgan v. Lowry, 168 Ga. 723, 149 S.E. 37, appeal dismissed, Morgan v. Georgia, 281 U.S. 691, 50 S. Ct. 238, 74 L. Ed. 1120; Family Finance Co. v. Allman, 174 Ga. 467, 163 S.E. 143; Cole v. Franklin Plan Co., 176 Ga. 561, 168 S.E. 261; Palmore v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R., 156 Md. 4, 142 Atl. 495; State v. Hill, 168 La. 761, 123 So. 317, 69 A.L.R. 574; Sweat v. Commonwealth, 152 Va. 1041, 148 S.E. 774; Dunn v. State, 122 Ohio St. 431, 172 N.E. 148, aff'g 36 Ohio App. 170, 173 N.E. 22, appeal dismissed and certiorari denied Dunn v. Ohio, 282 U.S. 801, 51 S. Ct. 84, 75 L. Ed. 721; State ex rel. Downing v. Powers, 125 Ohio St. 108, 180 N.E. 647; People v. Blumenthal, 157 N.Y. Misc. R. 943, 284 N.Y.S. 873; Gregg v. Personal Finance Co. of New York, 298 N.Y.S. 266; Richmond v. Conservative Credit System of New Jersey, 10 N.J. Misc. R. 14, 157 Atl. 446, rev'd on other grounds, 110 N.J. Law 73, 164 Atl. 563; Koen v. State, 162 Tenn. 573, 39 S.W. (2d) 283; Beasley v. Cahoon, 109 Fla. 106, 147 So. 288; Jannett v. Windham, 109 Fla. 129, 147 So. 296; 153 So. 784, aff'd Jannett v. Hardie, 290 U.S. 602, 54 S. Ct. 345, 78 L. Ed. 529; Ravitz v. Steurele, 257 Ky. 108, 77 S.W. (2d) 360; National Accounting Co. v. Dorman (Ky.), 11 Fed. Supp. 872, aff'd., 295 U.S. 718, 55 S. Ct. 835, 79 L. Ed. 1673; Cash Service Co. v. Ward, 118 W. Va. 703, 192 S.E. 344; Wrenn v. Portland Loan Co., 155 Ore. 395, 64 Pac. (2d) 520; Financial Aid Corporation v. Wallace, 216 Ind. 114, 23 N.E. (2d) 472, 125 A.L.R. 736; Miller v. Schuster, 289 N.W. 702; In re Fuller, 15 Cal. (2d) 425, 102 Pac. (2d) 321; 69 A.L.R. 581; 125 A.L.R. 743; St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. State (Mo.), 155 S.W. (2d) 107; State ex inf. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 275, 177 S.W. 640. (a) The small loan law is not a local or special law because it applies to a class and to all within that class. State ex inf. v. Southern, 265 Mo. 275, 117 S.W. 640; State ex rel. v. Tolle, 71 Mo. 645, 650; State v. Walsh, 136 Mo. 400, 405, 37 S.W. 1112; State ex rel. v. Roach, 258 Mo. 541, 563, 167 S.W. 1008; State ex inf. v. Armstrong, 315 Mo. 298, 286 S.W. 705; Sec. 8150, R.S. Mo., 1939; Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16, 90 S.W. 759; State v. Ware, 79 Ore. 367, 154 Pac. 905; Kelleher v. Minshull (Wash.), 119 Pac. (2d) 302; People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 159, 118 N.E. 87; Ravitz v. Steurele, 257 Ky. 108, 77 S.W. (2d) 360; State v. Hill, 168 La. 761, 123 So. 317, 69 A.L.R. 574; Cole v. Franklin Plan Co., 176 Ga. 561, 168 S.E. 261; State v. Wickenhoefer, 6 Penn. 120, 64 Atl. 273; Arts 2 and 3, Chap. 39, R.S. Mo. 1939; U.S.C.A., Title 12, Chaps. 2-12; Art. 10, Chap. 40, R.S. Mo. 1939; U.S.C.A., Title 12, Chap. 12, Secs. 1464-1468; Art. 8, Chap. 33, R.S. Mo. 1939; Chap. 134, R.S. Mo., 1939; Cavanaugh v. People, 61 Colo. 292, 157 Pac. 200; Waddell v. Traylor, 99 Colo. 576, 64 Pac. (2d) 1273; Reagan v. District of Columbia, 41 App. D.C. 409, writ of error den. (U.S.S. Ct., 1914); Beasley v. Cahoon, 109 Fla. 106, 147 So. 288; Dewey v. Richardson, 206 Mass. 430, 92 N.E. 708; Koen v. State, 162 Tenn. 573, 39 S.W. (2d) 283. (b) The small loan law is not a local or special law because the classification is reasonable. Ex parte Berger, 193 Mo. 16, 90 S.W. 759; Heller v. Lutz, 254 Mo. 704, 164 S.W. 123; State ex rel. Downing v. Powers, 125 Ohio St. 108, 180 N.E. 647; State v. Sherman, 18 Wyo. 169, 105 Pac. 299; State v. Ware, 79 Ore. 367, 154 Pac. 905; Kelleher v. Minshull (Wash.), 119 Pac. (2d) 302; People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 159, 118 N.E. 87; Wrenn v. Portland Loan Co., 153 Ore. 395, 64 Pac. (2d) 520; Commonwealth v. Puder, 271 Pa. St. 129, 104 Atl. 505, aff'g, 67 Pa. Super. Ct. 11; Ravitz v. Steurele, 257 Ky. 108, 77 S.W. (2d) 360; State v. Hill, 168 La. 761, 123 So. 317, 69 A.L.R. 574; Cole v. Franklin Plan Co., 176 Ga. 561, 168 S.E. 261; State v. Wickenhoefer, 6 Penn. 120, 64 Atl. 273; In re Home Discount Co. (Ala.), 147 Fed. 538; State ex rel. Meals v. Hackmann (Mo.), 217 S.W. 271. (c) The small loan law is not a law fixing the rate of interest. Laws 1927, page 252; Art. 7, Chap. 39, R.S. Mo. 1939; Sherrell v. Brantley, 324 Mo. 497, 66 S.W. (2d) 529; People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 159, 118 N.E. 87; Ravitz v. Steurele, 257 Ky. 108, 77 S.W. (2d) 360; Financial Aid Corp. v. Wallace, 216 Ind. 114, 23 N.E. (2d) 472, 125 A.L.R. 736; Wrenn v. Portland Loan Co., 155 Ore. 395, 64 Pac. (2d) 520; State v. Hill, 168 La. 761, 123 So. 317, 69 A.L.R. 574; State v. Sherman, 18 Wyo. 169, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 898, 105 Pac. 299; Ex parte Alabama Brokerage Co., 208 Ala. 242, 94 So. 87; Spithover v. Jefferson B/L Assn., 225 Mo. 660, 125 S.W. 766. (3) The small loan laws do not violate the constitutional prohibition against acts authorizing or creating corporations or associations with banking powers without submission to the voters of the State. Auten v. U.S. Natl. Bank, 174 U.S. 125, 43 L. Ed. 920; People ex rel. v. Loewenthal, 93 Ill. 191; State v. Reid, 125 Mo. 43, 50; State ex inf. v. Lincoln Trust Co., 144 Mo. 562, 590; Allen v. Clayton, 63 Iowa, 11; Dearborn v. Northwestern Svgs. Bank, 42 Ohio St. 617; Pape v. Capita Bank, 20 Kan. 440; State ex rel. Compton v. Buder, 308 Mo. 253.
Plaintiff sued to recover actual and punitive damages for the alleged wrongful and malicious invasion of his home and the seizure and conversion of his property. The trial before a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant, from which said judgment plaintiff took an appeal to the Supreme Court on the theory that a constitutional question was involved. The court ruled that no such question had been preserved for review and transferred the case to this court. The opinion is reported in 163 S.W. (2d) 1017. Pronouncements of the court in that opinion, incidental to the determination of the question of appellate jurisdiction, have made it obvious, if not conclusive, that the assignments of error made on this appeal are not properly here for review. This court is in effect furnished a ready-made opinion and a determination of questions that would dispose of the appeal and result in an affirmance of the judgment.
The character of the abstract furnished on appeal, the contents of the petition, the motion of defendant to strike out of the petition certain paragraphs by which plaintiff sought to raise a constitutional question, the action of the court in sustaining such motion, the filing of a term bill of exceptions thereto, that no final bill of exceptions preserving the motion for a new trial and exceptions to the ruling of the court thereon was filed, that plaintiff seeks to present the appeal on the record proper and sets out as a part of said record instructions given and refused, exceptions thereto, the motion for new trial, the overruling of said motion and plaintiff's exception, are all shown in the opinion to which reference has been made. A restatement of such facts would be useless iteration.
Appellant presents a formal assignment of errors. It covers only the alleged error of the court in sustaining the motion to strike out the allegations as to unconstitutionality of the law under which the respondent is doing business; the refusal of the court to grant instructions requested by plaintiff; and the giving of an instruction requested by defendant. The abstract, as heretofore indicated, sets forth the instructions given and refused, the motion for new trial, and the action of the court in reference to said instructions and said motion, and plaintiff's exception as though constituting a part of the record proper. The rulings of the trial court upon the motion to strike and in reference to the granting and refusal of instructions were all matters of exception. To render the rulings of the court in reference to such matters reviewable on appeal they must be preserved by a final bill of exceptions showing that all claimed errors in such rulings, and exceptions thereto, were called to the attention of the court in a motion for new trial. The motion for new trial, the ruling of the court thereon, and exception thereto must also be preserved in the bill of exceptions. The mere filing of a term bill of exceptions, showing the petition, the motion to strike, the ruling on the motion, and exception thereto, does not suffice for the review of...
To continue reading
Request your trial