Foster's License

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Foster's License

60 Pa. Super. 8, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 19, 1915

DocketAppeal, No. 180

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 60 Pa. Super. 8 (Foster's License) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foster's License, 60 Pa. Super. 8, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139 (Pa. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Kephart, J.,

The questions presented by this appeal have been decided in the case of Com. v. Young, in an opinion recently handed down by the Supreme Court. There it was held that the Act of June 5, 1913, P. L. 429, relative to the making of small loans, was unconstitutional. We quote from the concluding paragraph of that opinion: “In what we have said our purpose has been simply to show that the one certain effect of the act is to create a distinct class out of persons having in common, as between themselves, no peculiarities whether of person or business, or anything else, thus distinguishing them from any other class, and investing the class thus artificially created with special and exclusive privilege with respect to interest charges on money loaned. From our study of the act we see no escape from the conclusions above expressed. We, therefore, hold that the act is violative of sec. 7, of article 3 of the constitution, in the respects indicated.”

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Kephart, J.,

The questions presented by this appeal have been decided in the case of Com. v. Young, in an opinion recently handed down by the Supreme Court. There it was held that the Act of June 5, 1913, P. L. 429, relative to the making of small loans, was unconstitutional. We quote from the concluding paragraph of that opinion: “In what we have said our purpose has been simply to show that the one certain effect of the act is to create a distinct class out of persons having in common, as between themselves, no peculiarities whether of person or business, or anything else, thus distinguishing them from any other class, and investing the class thus artificially created with special and exclusive privilege with respect to interest charges on money loaned. From our study of the act we see no escape from the conclusions above expressed. We, therefore, hold that the act is violative of sec. 7, of article 3 of the constitution, in the respects indicated.”

The decree is affirmed at the cost of the appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Pa. Super. 8, 1915 Pa. Super. LEXIS 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fosters-license-pasuperct-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack