Court Opinion

ID: 9731625
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:52:31.780389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:18.072057
License: Public Domain

Carter and Chappell, JJ.,
concurring.
We agree with the majority opinion. However, in view of the dissent we desire to point out the fallacy of its reasoning.' The general usury law of this state since 1879 has provided that if interest is contracted for, received, or reserved, in excess of the maximum fixed by law, no interest is collectible. Under the holdings of this court, only the debtor and those in privity with him could avail themselves of the benefits of this statute. Under the Installment Loan Act, if usurious interest is *19contracted for, received, or reserved, neither interest nor principal is collectible. The penalty for the violation of the usury provisions has been increased, but the rule that the defense of usury is available only to the debtor and his privies has not been changed. Such a change is a proper subject of legislation and not one that properly can be made effective by judicial pronouncement.