Warner v. People
| Citation | 208 P. 459,71 Colo. 559 |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1922 |
| Docket Number | 10132. |
| Parties | WARNER v. PEOPLE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Error to District Court, City and County of Denver; A. F Hollenbeck, Judge.
Lou E Warner was convicted under Laws 1919, c. 159, § 1 prohibiting the charging of more than 12 per cent. interest on money loaned, and he brings error.
Affirmed.
John S. Stidger, of Denver, for plaintiff in error.
Victor E. Keyes, Atty. Gen., and Samuel Chutkow, and Charles H. Sherrick, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the People.
Plaintiff in error was convicted under section 1, c. 159, S. L. 1919, of engaging in the business of loaning less than $300 at a greater rate than 12 per cent. per annum, without a license. He was also convicted on a count under section 17 of the same act, but the court set aside the verdict on that count. He brings error and attacks the constitutionality of the act on the following grounds:
(1) That it deprives defendant of due process of law.
(2) That it is special law where a general one could have been made applicable, and so violates section 21 of article 5 of the Colorado Constitution.
(3) The subject of the act is not expressed in the title.
(4) It violates section 3, art. 2, of the Colorado Constitution, in that it deprives plaintiff in error of the right to acquire, possess, and protect property.
(5) It impairs the obligation of contracts.
As to the first point there is nothing in the act touching the question of due process. Counsel argues, however, the question of equal protection. We took this statute from Illinois. The question was determined there before our act was passed. People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 159, 118 N.E. 87.
The second point amounts to a proposition that the Legislature cannot fix one rate of interest for small loans and another for large which needs but to be stated to be refuted. The power of the Legislature is not so limited.
As to the third point: The subject-matter of section 1, upon which the defendant was convicted, is expressed in the title. The title is as follows:
'To license and regulate the business of making loans in sums of three hundred dollars ($300) 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ravitz v. Steurele
...156 Md. 4, 142 A. 495; Sweat v. Commonwealth, 152 Va. 1041, 148 S.E. 774; Cavanaugh v. People, 61 Colo. 292, 157 P. 200; Warner v. People, 71 Colo. 559, 208 P. 459; Beasley v. Cahoon, 109 Fla. 106, 147 So. Morgan v. Lowry, Sheriff, 168 Ga. 723, 149 S.E. 37 (1929), affirmed in Morgan v. Stat......
-
Kelleher v. Minshull
......506, 11 P.2d 857;. In re Fuller, 1940, 15 Cal.2d 425, 102 P.2d 321. . . Colorado: Cavanaugh v. People, 1916, 61 Colo. 292,. 157 P. 200; Warner v. People, 1922, 71 Colo. 559,. 208 P. 459; Rice v. Franklin Loan & Finance Co., . ......
-
Ravitz v. Steurele, Justice of the Peace
...156 Md. 4, 142 A. 495; Sweat v. Commonwealth, 152 Va. 1041, 148 S.E. 774; Cavanaugh v. People, 61 Colo. 292, 157 P. 200; Warner v. People, 71 Colo. 559, 208 P. 459; Beasley v. Cahoon, 109 Fla. 106, 147 So. 288; Morgan v. Lowry, Sheriff, 168 Ga. 723, 149 S.E. 37 (1929), affirmed in Morgan v.......
-
Household Finance Corp. v. Shaffner
...or special law relating to interest. People v. Stokes, 281 Ill. 159, 118 N.E. 87; State v. Hill, 168 La. 761, 123 So. 317; Warner v. People, 71 Colo. 559, 208 P. 459; Beasley v. Cahoon, 109 Fla. 106, 147 So. King v. State, 136 Ga. 709, 71 S.E. 1093; Badger v. State, 154 Ga. 443, 114 S.E. 63......