Case Name: Wheeler, Appellant, v. Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1918-04-22
Citations: 261 Pa. 139
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 279
Parties: Wheeler, Appellant, v. Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia.
Judges: Before Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 139–140

Head Matter:
Wheeler, Appellant, v. Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia.
Argued Jan. 21,1918.
Appeal, No. 279, Jan. T., 1917, by plaintiff, from judgment of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1916, No. 310, affirming judgment of Municipal Court, Philadelphia County, May T., 1916, No. 268, for defendant in case tried without a jury, in case of William C. Wheeler v. Remedial Loan Company of Philadelphia.
Before Potter, Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Superior Court. See Commonwealth v. Puder, 261 Pa. 129.
Plaintiff brought suit to recover a sum charged by defendant for the use of money in excess of six per cent., alleging that such charge was usurious. Defendant ad mitted payment by plaintiff as alleged, but averred that it was a licensed money lender under the Act of June 17, 1915, P. L. 1012; and that the amounts charged were proper under the said statute. The case was tried by a judge without a jury, who found in favor of defendant, upon which judgment was entered. Plaintiff appealed to' the Superior Court, averring that the said Act of 1915 was unconstitutional. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was the judgment of the Superior Court.
Edward A. Kelly, for appellant.
Thos. Raeburn White, with him T. Henry Walnut and Harry D. Wesoott, for appellee.
April 22, 1918:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Frazer,
In this case plaintiff appeals from a judgment for defendant in an action to recover the difference between the amount defendant charged plaintiff for a loan and the amount due with interest computed at the rate of six per cent. The question raised involves the constitutionality of the Act of June 17,1915, P. L. 1012, and as that question is fully discussed and determined in Commonwealth v.' Puder, nothing additional need be added here.
The judgment is affirmed.