Court Opinion

ID: 6537564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:12:59.317359+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:42.524179
License: Public Domain

By the Court, Lacy, J. We deem it unnecessary to notice the two first questions raised upon the record, further than to remark, that it was held in the case of McFarland et al. vs. The Bank of the State of Arkansas, ante, that the issues of the notes of the Bank are not bills of credit, within the meaning of the Federal Constitution. And that, to constitute á good plea of usury, the party pleading it must aver a corrupt intent. It certainly cannot be contended that the Court below erred in disregarding a plea of non est factum, which is not sworn to. The only remaining inquiry is, do the first and fifth sections of the 80th chapter of the Revised Statutes, as printed, which is declared to be the law of the land, by an act of the General Assembly of the I4th of December, 1838, put in operation by the proclamation of the Governor, issued in pursuance of its authority, on the 20th of March, 1839, repeal the acts of 3d of March and 10th of December, A. D. 1838, prescribing the rate of interest for the Bank of the State? By the Revised Code, it is declared, that “ no person or corporation shall, directly or indirectly, take a higher rate of interest for the loan or forbearance of money, than six per centum per annum, unless it is so expressed in the writing,” and then not exceeding ten per cent. The acts of the 3d of March and 10th of December, 1838, prescribe the rate of interest for the Bank, and fix it higher than six per cent., without requiring it to be expressed in the contract, and give ten per cent, per annum upon all bonds, bills, and notes, which shall not be paid upon maturity, or be protested, or upon which suits may be brought. The question now recurs: Does the general law of interest, as contained in the Revised Statutes, repeal the special law upon that subject, as fixed by the acts referred to? This question is one of acknowledged magnitude, and the Court has met with no inconsiderable difficulty in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. It has been well discussed by the repective counsel engaged, and in a manner worthy the importance of the principle involved. , It is a universal rule in the construction of statutes, whether public or private, founded alike in justice and sound policy, that all acts passed upon the same subject, in pari materia, must be taken and construed together, and made to-stand, if they are capable of being reconciled. Wc know of no exception to the universality of this rule. Indeed, the principle may now be considered as a settled maxim of the common law. Its application to the statutes now under consideration, will test the question in the present case. The rule of interest, as prescribed in the Revised Code, may properly be denominated a general law, including all cases within its terms. It does not apply to cases not within the meaning or reason of the statute. The rate of interest, as prescribed by the acts of the 3d of March and 10th of December, may justly be termed a special law, having exclusive reference to the Bank. Now, do the provisions of the general law of interest repeal a special law of interest, as applicable alone to the Bank? They certainly do not do it by any express words or terms. The Revised Statutes declare, that no person or corporation shall take a greater rate of interest than is contained in the act of the code. But it does not refer to the Bank of the State by name, or declare that that institution is embraced by the word corporation. Does it, then, do it by necessary implication, or by any just interpretation of that term? The term “Corporation,” if it stood alone, is a word of general signification, and would unquestionably embrace the case of the Bank. But is not its meaning restricted and confined to a more limited sense, and applying only to such corporations, other than the Bank, that were then in being, or might afterwards be created. There were many corporations besides the State and Real Estate Bank; for instance, the Little Rock Manufacturing & Mining Company; Little Rock Academy; Napoleon Public School and Church; numerous turnpike companies, &c. To most, if not all of these corporations, was given, by the express provisions of their charters, the power of acquiring, holding, and transmitting property, and making contracts. And the corporation of the Fayetteville Female Academy, by the third section of its charter, had express authority given it to loan money on interest. The term “Corporation,” then, is justly applicable to all these corporate bodies, and hence the propriety of the term as used in the Revised Statutes. It is clear, that the term could not embrace the cases of interest of the Real Estate Bank, because the Legislature was incompetent to prescribe any other rule upon that subject, than was contained in the charter, without the assent of the stockholders; the charter being a contract between the State and the corporators. That they did not intend to apply the term corporation to the Bank of the State, is, we apprehend, pretty clear and certain. Had that been the intention, would they have left its repeal to mere implication, and that, too, in a case where the State was the sole corporator, and its honor and its means pledged for the redemption of the capital stock? This view of the case is strengthened, by considering that both the general and special law of interest were before the Legislature at one and the same time, and that there were only four days between their respective dates. The proximity of these dates raises a violent presumption, if it does not amount to full proof, that the term “Corporation,” used in the general law of interest, was never intended to embrace or apply to the transactions of the Bank. The rate of interest that was to govern that corporation, was fixed by special and particular acts, that were considered maturely, and-separately passed; and the latter act upon the subject, might almost be said to reach the very verge of the date of the general law upon the subject, or run into its provisions in point of time. This idea receives an additional confirmation from the known and well established fact, that the laws of the Revised Code were passed in one collected body, as a code, and not in separate and distinct acts. This grew out of the errors- and imperfections of the original rolls, as they appeared in the office of the Secretary of State, and hence the act of the 14th December, 1838, made the Revised-Code, as printed, the law of the land. Having passed in this manner, is it reasonable to suppose that the Legislature could have intended, when 'using general words in a general law, to repeal the provisions of special and particular acts not falling within the reason or spirit of the rule. Besides, if this was the case, it must have been apparent to all that the Bank would be compelled to adopt the rate of interest as-specified by her charter, and the amendatory acts engrafted upon it for a given time, until the Governor issued his proclamation; which it( was reasonable to presume could not take place before the lapse of several months. Such being the state of things, to suppose that the Legislature intended, by the term “ Corporation,” to include the Bank, would argue a want of foresight, and inconsistency in their proceedings, which this Court is not allowed to infer. Such a presumption would give the debtors to the Bank one rule of interest to govern their' contracts, during a given period, and, in a short time thereafter, would furnish a wholly diiferent rule upon the subject, and-that,, too, in a case of importance, affecting the rights and franchises-®f a public corporation owned entirely by the State. We deem-it unnecessary to pursue the subject further; and if we even entertained serious doubts upon the point, we would feel ourselves constrained to declare, that the first and fifth sections in the Revised Statutes, relating to the general law of interest, do not repeal, either by express words, or by necessary implication, the acts of the, 3d of March and 10th December, 1838. The magnitude of the mischief, and the manifest injustice of a contrary decision, if our judgment stood suspended upon the point, would incline the balance in. favor of the construction we have put upon these acts. Judgment affirmed. .