Court Opinion

ID: 9725323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:41:06.952546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:14.108573
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority in this case.
The pleadings and the evidence in this case present a question as to the validity of a retail installment contract for the sale of an automobile. The constitutionality of the Installment Sales Act is not an issue in the case unless it is necessary to a decision of the case. The conclusion of a pleader alone cannot raise such an issue.
The Installment Sales Act was intended to regulate valid time sales. The act is not applicable to transactions which in fact are loans made in violation of the Installment Loan Act. Consequently, if the retail installment contract involved in this case was not a valid *497time'sale, then the Installment Sales Act is not involved and its constitutionality cannot be an issue in this case.
If the retail installment contract involved in this case is in fact a time sale made in good faith, then it is valid under Grand Island Finance Co. v. Fowler, 124 Neb. 514, 247 N. W. 429, which, apparently, is still the law in this state. In that event, the constitutionality of the Installment Sales Act cannot be an issue because the contract is valid without regard to the statute.
In any event, the plaintiffs cannot challenge the constitutionality of the Installment Sales Act because their rights are not affected adversely in any way by the act. The Installment Sales Act imposes controls and limitations upon the seller and creates rights and benefits for the purchaser. In the absence of the statute there is no regulation of time sales made in good faith.
Generally, a statute will not be declared unconstitutional at the suit of a party whose rights are not affécted injuriously by the operation of the statute. Johnson Fruit Co. v. Story, 171 Neb. 310, 106 N. W. 2d 182; Hanson v. City of Omaha, 157 Neb. 403, 59 N. W. 2d 622; State ex rel. Nelson v. Butler, 145 Neb. 638, 17 N. W. 2d 683; Erickson v. Nine Mile Irr. Dist., 109 Neb. 189, 190 N. W. 573; Urbach v. City of Omaha, 101 Neb. 314, 163 N. W. 307, L. R. A. 1917E 1163; Peterson v. Anderson, 100 Neb. 149, 158 N. W. 1055; State ex rel. Ridgell v. Hall, on rehearing, 99 Neb. 95, 156 N. W. 16; Cram v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 85 Neb. 586, 123 N. W. 1045, 26 L. R. A. N. S. 1022; State v. Brandt, 83 Neb. 656, 120 N. W. 196.
For these reasons I dissent from the holding of the majority in this case.