Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

COMMONWEALTH v. DERSTINE (05/25/65)

decided: May 25, 1965.

COMMONWEALTH
v.
DERSTINE, APPELLANT



Appeal from order of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1964, No. 289, affirming judgment of Court of Quarter Sessions of Bucks County, Jan. T., 1963, No. 73, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. I. D. Derstine.

COUNSEL

J. Lawrence Grim, Jr., with him Grim & Grim, for appellant.

Ward F. Clark, First Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Bell, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien and Roberts, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Bell.

Author: Bell

[ 418 Pa. Page 187]

Defendant was convicted of a violation of the Small Loans Act,*fn* Act of June 17, 1915, P. L. 1012, as amended, 7 P.S. ยง 751 et seq. The lower Court dismissed defendant's motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment and imposed sentence. The Superior Court affirmed*fn** on the Opinion of the lower Court. We granted allocatur.

The case comes before us on a statement of facts which the parties agreed to, in lieu of testimony. Defendant made a cash loan of $200 to the private prosecutor for an executed judgment note for $220 with interest, payable within 30 days, and secured by certain

[ 418 Pa. Page 188]

    collateral. The money was loaned by defendant on the prosecutor's assertion that he needed the money in the operation of his business. There is no evidence that the prosecutor intended to or did use the proceeds of the loan for other than business purposes, nor was there any evidence that the prosecutor was pressed for lack of funds to meet any immediate necessities.

Forty-five days after the loan had been made, the prosecutor repaid defendant a sum of money which he alleged included interest in excess of 6 percent per annum. Defendant denied ever having made any other loan and there was no countervailing evidence. Defendant's demurrer to the Commonwealth's evidence was dismissed.

The pertinent provisions of the S.L.A., supra, are as follows: "Section 1. The title of the act, approved the seventeenth day of June, one thousand nine hundred fifteen (Pamphlet Laws 1012) . . . is hereby amended to read as follows:

"An Act

" Regulating the business of loaning money**fn** in sums of six hundred ($600) dollars or less, either with or without security, to individuals pressed by lack of funds to meet immediate necessities ; fixing the rates of interest and charges therefor; requiring the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.