Montpelier examiner. [volume] (Montpelier, Idaho) 1895-1937, 1898-01-19


The contract in question does not
fix the rate Of interest upon the
the loan evidenced by it, but it pro
Yides fer monthly payment Of
$3.50 to he paid thereon to be APP
piled in the manner therein pro-
vided. The contact provides that
1915 Of the monthly payment shall
be applied so the payment Of the
premium Of precedence due on said
loan and that $12.50 of such
monthly payments should be ap
piled to the payment of the interest
due on the said loan, and that the
balance Of said payments shall lie
credited in dues on said stock, and
that said payments shall be con-
tinued until the dues so credited
on said stock, together with the
dividends declared thereon, shall
equal the amount loaned
Thus it will be seen that out of
each monthly payment the rcspon-
dent, for use Of the money loaned,
retained the sum of $21.25, and
that the principal should be re.
duced to the extent Of $tG.25 or
less. owing to the fines and assess
ments made pursuant to the by
laws Of the respondent. We are
inclined to think that under the
provisions of said contract that
what is called premium Of proceed
ure is nothing bat interest.
st will be seen that while the
principal Of the loan is being re-
duced monthly, the interest pay,
ment remains the same, and that
under the terms Of the contract it
would take more than II years 10
repay said loan. Now, the amount
OF the principal that would be CIV.
ing on this contract would vary in
amount monthly from $500, the
amount loaned, to some amount
not exceeding $16.25, the last pay
ment on the principal. The amount
owing Oh the principal Of the loan
would be constantly decreasing, but
the interest payment would remain
the same, being as much in the last
payment as in the first. It is only
d matte: of computation to ascer-
tain the average Of the time that
the principal would be outstanding
and the average rate per cent Of in
terest paid, and that the average
rate would exceed one and one half
per cent per month. The appellant
IN his brief has tabulated the rate,
computing it for every six months,
and he places the rate for tile first
six months at 1912 per cent and for
the last six months at 213.38 per
cent. Whether lis calculations are
correct or not, we have not taken
the time to demonstrate, taking it
for granted that, inaemuch as his
calculation is not challenged tor
inacuracy by the respondents brief
(Which only challenges the basis
on which il Is madel that il is prae-
tically correct.
"ufury Cannot be sanctioned IN
derany name or gnise, and where
usnry is contracted for, directly or
indirectly, the party making the
loan cannot, under our statutes,
recover any interest or costs. The
complaint in the suit brought by
respondent, as shown By paragraph
3 heretofore quoted, shows on its
face that on the contract in qucs-
ion the appellants bad paid $685.
50 and oyerpaid the principal Of
said loan. For this reason the said
complaint on IFS face showed 10
cause of action in the respondent,
the plaintiffs therein.
I'VE will supplement what VT
have already said. with reference to
the question Of usury that under
our statutes il Is not necessary to
plead usury. That the respondent
did not allege the substance of ite