Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1915-08-31

Haley Of the Supreme Court. wherein
1t is held that contracts made at ex-
orbitant rates above the legal rate
cannot hold in equity.
The opinion of Justice Haley is given
in the case Of Dow c. Scribner against
George F. Wilson OF Biddeford which
was entered from York county as an
equity suit to recover on a loan Of SO.
The case came up for hearing before
Justice Haley through an action
brought by the plaintiff against the
management Of the Pepperell Mills
when an attempt was made to recover
the wages due the defendant under
the contract or agreement made at the
time the loan was given.
The opinion IN fun is as follows:
STATE OF MAINE.
York County.
Supreme judicial Court.
Dow c. Scribner
VS.
George F. Wilson, ct al.
Opinion.
Haley, ]. This cause came on for
hearing upon bill, answer and proof,
and that there may be no misunder-
standing as to my rulings and reasons
in this case in the event that the
parties see fit to take the case to the
Law Court. file this opinion as a
statement Of facts and rulings by the
Court.
May 10, 1913. George F. Wilson ap-
Piled to the plaintiff. Dow c. Serb
ner. for loan OF money. At that
time Wilson was in the employ of the
postofHce department at Biddeford,
Maine. Shortly after that time he
ceased his employment with the gov
eminent. At that time the plaintiff
maintained an office at Biddeford
where he was engaged in the business
OF loanins money in small sums. and
upon Wilson asking for a loan and
stating that he desired ten dollars,
without any particular conversation
except the statement by the plaintiff
that the contracts to be hereinafter
spoken of were his usual contracts in
loaning money. Mr.. Wilson signed
prommissory note for the sum of sl4.50
agreeing to pay five dollars Of the
principal and $3.50 each month, or
fraction of month from maturity for
the use Of the money, and a further
agreement that il suit was brought
upon the note he would pay s25 at
torncy fee in addition to the principal
and charges. At the same time he
signed blank assignment of wages.
and also power of attorney wherein
the plaintiff. D. c. Scribner, or his
brother Fred c. Scribner of Portland,
or either Of them, or such persons as
they might substitute, were author
lied to execute one or more contracts
OF assignment to secure the payment
OF any Indebtedness that might be due
said Scribner of the earnings, wages,
claims and demands Of whatever ma
ture that then were or might there
after become due to him from any
party whatsoever to the extent of his
Indebtedness. including all lawful ex-
penses incurred by said creditor
Thereupon Wilson was given ten dol
lars. and shortly afterwards lost his
employment with the government, and
no payment was made on said loan
until January %. 1914. at which time
he was In the employ Of the Pepperell
Manufacturing Company At the
NAAAAS VI tiiS lCdH anu SlSuluS VI the
papers above named Wilson had no
contract or promise of employment
with the Pepperell Manufacturing
Company. Mr.. Scribner learned on
the 14th day of January. 1914, that
Mr.. Wilson was SO employed. and
himself filled out the blank assignment
Of wages that Wilson had signed when
he obtained the loan, so that the wages
OF Wilson that were due him, and
might become due him, from the Pep
pereH Manufacturing Company for a
period OF one year, were payable to
said Scribner. placed the assignment
upon record and notified the Pepperell
Manufacturing Company, but did not
notify Mr.. Wilson, and upon the 23rd
day Of January, 1914. he drew Of the
wages earned by Wilson the sum of
$40. Upon learning that his wages
had been taken upon the assignment
Wilson applied to Charles T. Read Of
Biddeford. who advanced him money
to live upon and took an assignment
of the wages Of Wilson to himself
and notified the Pepperell Manufac-
turing Company to ray no further
sums to the plaintiff Scribner on the
Scribner assignment. Nothing further
was done until August 10. 1914, when
the plaintiff filed this bill in equity,
asking that the Pepperell Manufacture
ing Company be ordered to pay over
to him the wages that had been earned
by Wilson up to that time. or enough
to discharge the above mentioned note
with the sums payable for the use
thereof. The defendants Wilson and
Read raised several objections to the
maintenance Of the bill, and in their
answers pleaded that the contract set
forth in the bill, as evidenced by the
above mentioned note. blank assign
ment Of wages and power Of attorney.
was an unconscionable contract and
void for fraud. and could not be en-.
forced in equity. The latter defense
is the only one that have considered.
Equity refuses to enforce a con-
tract. even though legal. In which the
party seeking redress has 20 far over
reached his adversary that the con-
tract Is unconscionable: such contracts
are deemed to have been procured by
fraud. and. as stated by Lord Hard
wicke in Chesterfield v. Jensen. 2 Yes.
ST.. 155. in speaking Of fraud that
would avoid a contract. Second: 1T