Santa Fe daily New Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1885-1897, 1894-03-09
Highest of all in eavenng PowerLaest u S. Govt Report
@E!a!:'!,!! e! Bssi9g Bsxd:3!
ABSOLUTELY PURE
ABSOLUTELY PURE

from which the company took the case
to the supreme court of the territory by
writ of error. It was there argued and
submitted in 1892, it being contended
for McBroom that as the laws of New
Mexico made usury a misdemeanor, pun
ishable by fine and imprisonment, the
entire contract was void as against pub
lie policy; that the contract of loan was
usurious, and that the right to the remedy
undeg our laws by suit for double the
amount of usury paid accrued at the date
of the payAas.,t 90 the $500 by Nc
Broom in 1885; while on the part Of the
company it was contended among other
defenses that until the debt due by Nc
Broom was fully paid, principal and legal
interest, there was locus penitentia to
the lender to apply any payments made
by McBroom as payments in reduction
of the legal part of the debt, namely,
the'principal and II per cent interest per
annum that, under the circumstances OF
the payment, the return of $1,000 of the
money agreed to be loaned to McBroom,
to the agents of the company, even if
held to be a return to the company, and
not a payment to them as individuals, was
a reduction Of the loan by that amount,
and consequently the $4,000, not having
been paid as usury, no right of &C.
tion on the part of McBroom
against the company under the
statute for penalty of double the
amount paid, had accrued; and that the
entire contract was not void because our
usury laws do not in terms declare such
contracts void and do provide another
penalty for their violation, which is ex-
elusive of all others.
In 1892 the supreme court decided the
case, Associate Justice Freeman deliver
ing the opinion Of the court, Associate
Justices Seeds, Lee and McFle concur
ring. The court held that the payment
by McBroom to the agent and solicitor
of the company of the $G,500 was a pay
ment of that sum to the company; that
all payments made by McBroom on his
loan whether received as usury, bonus or
commission, should be first applied in re-
duction of the legal interest and princi-
pei due; that the payment made by Nc
Broom, not equaling the legal part of the
debt due by him to the company, his
remedy against the company for the
penalty under our usury laws had not ac-
crued and that the contract of loan was
not void because our usury laws do not
in terms declare usurious contracts void
but do provide specific penalty for their
violation which is exclusive of all others
and to which the courts can not add the
additional penalty of forfeiture of the
money due under such contracts. The
court therefore adjudged the judgment
of the district court erroneous and enter
ed Judgment for the company and against
McBroom, from which judgment Me-
Broom took the case by writ of error to
the supreme court of the United States.
Messrs. L. A. Fiske, of this city, and A.
A. Jones, of Las Vegas, were attorneys
for the company and McBroom was repre-
sonted by Hon. Frank Springer. This
was Mr.. Fiskes first case before
the supreme court and he therefore feels
quite elated over his victory, while on
the other hand it is also but just to say
that this is the first case Hon Frank
Springer has thus far lost in the u s.
supreme court.