Wheeler v. Remedial Loan Co. of Philadelphia

• Decision Date: 22 April 1918
• Docket Number: 279
• Citation: 261 Pa. 139,104 A. 508
• Parties: Wheeler, Appellant, v. Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

104 A. 508

261 Pa. 139

Wheeler, Appellant, v. Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia

No. 279

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

April 22, 1918

Argued: January 21, 1918

Appeal, No. 279, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1916, No. 310, affirming judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia County, May T., 1916, No. 268, for defendant in case tried without a jury, in case of William C. Wheeler v. Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia. Affirmed.

Appeal from Superior Court. See Commonwealth v. Puder, 261 Pa. 129.

Plaintiff brought suit to recover a sum charged by defendant for the use of money in excess of six per cent., alleging that such charge was usurious. Defendant admitted payment by plaintiff as alleged, but averred that it was a licensed money lender under the Act of June 17, 1915, P.L. 1012; and that the amounts charged were proper under the said statute. The case was tried by a judge without a jury, who found in favor of defendant, upon which judgment was entered. Plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, averring that the said Act of 1915 was unconstitutional. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was the judgment of the Superior Court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Edward A. Kelly, for appellant.

Thos. Raeburn White, with him T. Henry Walnut and Harry D. Wescott, for appellee.

Before POTTER, STEWART, MOSCHZISKER, FRAZER and WALLING, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE FRAZER:

In this case plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant in an action to recover the difference between the amount defendant charged plaintiff for a loan and the amount due with interest computed at the rate of six per cent. The question raised involves the constitutionality of the Act of June 17, 1915, P.L. 1012, and as that question is fully discussed and determined in Commonwealth v. Puder, nothing additional need be added here.

The judgment is affirmed.