The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1933-05-22
SAY USURY STATUTE
DOES NOT PROHIBIT
LOWER Cash PRICE
nigh Court Defines New Usury
Law in Case Appealed
From cass County

Aue uSury statute enacted Dy the
1888 legislature was construed by the
state supreme court in a decision an
nounced Monday to permit sales OF
personal property on credit or defer
red payments at q higher price than
the cash selling price, plus eight per
cent interest, unless sales are made to
evade the prohibition against usury
"a defined by the statute.
The statute, House Bill 293, fiy~
the maximum interest rate at eight
percent and relates to the amount to
be charged on credit or installment
buying.
Sales Of personal property on credit
Or on deferred payments, or upon
monthly or installment payments are
not prohibited by the statute" the su-
preme court held, though the total
payments exceed the cash selling price
plus eigh per cent interest, unless so
made In order to evade the prohibition
against usury as defined in it,
The case was brought by H. G. Say
Ter, Fargo, against the Brady Motor
Co., Fargo, involving the purchase OF
q car on deferred payments.
Upholds Lower Court
sayler contended the contract was
void because it violated the provisions
Of the 1888 statute in that the auto
mobile firm exacted a price for the
car greater than the cash selling price,
plus eight per cent interest on the
deferred portion of the purchase price.
The defendant commended the statute
IS unconstitutional.
Judge M. ]. Englet, In Cass county
district court, held there was no viola
ton Of the statute and this judgment
vas affirmed by the higher court,
with Judge L. e. Birdzell dissenting in
part. He concurred In the affirma-
ton Of the judgment, but dissented
trom that portion constituting the sta
tute as not to include sales on credit
CT on deferred plan at higher price
than the cash selling price plus eight
per cent interest.
If the sale be made in good faith
the majority opinion said, land the
time price be fixed at a sum greater
than the cash selling price for any
ether reason than to evade the pro-
3,ibition against, usury, there Is no
transgression Of the statute and no
penalties attach, even though the dif-
ference be greater than the interest
reckoned at eight per cent on the de-
3erred payments"
All Doubt Dispelled
"Were we otherwise in doubt as to
the propriety Of the foregoing con-
struction, that doubt would be wholly
dispelled by a consideration Of the sta
tute in the light of Section 81 of the
state constitution" This section pro-
vides no bill shall embrace more than
one subject, which shall be expressed
in its title, but bill which violates
this provision shall be invalidated ONLY
as to so much as shall not be ex-
pressed.
THE title to the act here 10 ques-
tion," the court said. "recites merely
that the bill IS for an act to amend
and re-enact the statute defining
usury. There Is nothing in its title
to appraise even the most critica
reader that the bill deals with the
subject Of price-fixing or that 1t at.
tempts to outlaw contracts Of sale o.
any sort. The amendment forbids anC
penalties sales on credit and on in
stallment and deferred payments onl
in those cases where they constitute
evasions of the prohibition Of excessive
interest. It does not provide that suct
sales shall be considered as evasions
OF the prohibition. Viewed in the mos.
liberal light, the body Of the act L
germane to and reasonably connected
with what IS expressed in its titlt
when construed in that way.
'Viewed in this light the evidence !!
ample to sustain the judgment from
which this appeal is taken and thu
constitutional question urged by tn
sdefendant IL not involved"