In re Application of Washer

11 Citing cases

  1. Nelson v. Marshall

    94 Idaho 726 (Idaho 1972)   Cited 19 times

    In any event, a classification which favors corporate entities over individuals will be sustained if it relates reasonably to a legitimate public purpose. Frost v. Corporation Comm'n, 278 U.S. 515, 522-523, 49 S.Ct. 235, 73 L.Ed. 483 (1929); Dillingham v. McLaughlin, 264 U.S. 370, 44 S.Ct. 362, 68 L.Ed. 742 (1924); Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U.S. 94, 41 S.Ct. 433, 65 L.Ed. 837, 17 A.L.R. 873 (1921); Ex Parte Washer, 78 Cal.App. 759, 248 P. 1068 (1926); Pedrick v. First Nat'l Bank, 267 Wis. 436, 66 N.W.2d 154 (1954); Annot., 68 L.Ed. 742 (1925); 16 Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law § 520 (1964); 16A C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 504 (1956); cf. Crom v. Frahm, 33 Idaho 314, 193 P. 1013 (1920). The general preference for the corporate entities listed in I.C. §§ 42-1754(b) and 42-1756 (a) appears to relate reasonably to the legitimate public purposes of efficient development of the state's water resources and preservation of the state funds invested in this endeavor.

  2. Berry H. Sys. v. Capitol Properties, Inc.

    9 Cal.2d 12 (Cal. 1937)   Cited 1 times

    Similar legislative classification of individual obligations and corporate bond issues has been frequently upheld. (See In reGirard, 186 Cal. 718 [ 200 P. 593]; In re Washer, 200 Cal. 598 [ 254 P. 951]; Ex parte Washer, 78 Cal.App. 759 [ 248 P. 1068].) [4] Plaintiff practically concedes this point, but contends further that a discrimination exists under the statute between corporate borrowers whose bonds are sold within this state under permit from the Commissioner of Corporations, and corporate borrowers whose bonds are sold entirely outside the state without the necessity of a permit.

  3. Buck v. Dahlgren

    23 Cal.App.3d 779 (Cal. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 29 times
    In Buck the creditor agreed to postpone a trustee's sale from November 6, 1967 until December 6, 1967 for the sum of $500.

    (5) The California courts have held the Usury Law was designed to penalize lenders taking advantage of unwary and necessitous borrowers. (See, e.g., White v. Seitzman, 230 Cal.App.2d 756, 761 [ 41 Cal.Rptr. 359]; Wooton v. Coerber, 213 Cal.App.2d 142, 148 [ 28 Cal.Rptr. 635]; In re Washer, 78 Cal.App. 759, 771-772 [ 248 P. 1068].) In order to effectuate the statutory policy of protection, the courts have also regularly held a borrower and a lender are not in pari delicto in a usurious transaction and the lender may not assert an estoppel against the borrower simply because the borrower took the initiative in seeking the loan, knew of the usurious nature of the transaction, and paid usurious interest without protest.

  4. Wooton v. Coerber

    213 Cal.App.2d 142 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 31 times
    Finding that usury laws did not apply in a joint venture

    It is the theory of such enactments that those in distress might be plunged into deeper distress if the law did not come to their relief and protect them from the money lender, who would prey upon misfortune and wring from the needy borrower, in his endeavor to tide over present difficulty, the utmost farthing as compensation for what is often an evanescent benefit — merely the putting off of an evil day." ( In re Washer, 78 Cal.App. 759, 771-772 [ 248 P. 1068].) In the instant case, appellants, who concede that they are speculators in real estate and that the property here involved was one such speculation, were neither needy nor in distress — excepting, of course, such distress as may have been caused by the thought of losing a "quick" profit.

  5. Calimpco, Inc. v. Warden

    100 Cal.App.2d 429 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 29 times
    In Calimpco, Inc. v. Warden, supra, 100 Cal.App.2d 429, joint venturers in the construction of houses sued materialmen to recover the statutory penalty for usury.

    "'Laws enacted to guard against unreasonable rates of interest are laws against oppression, and should be favorably regarded, as they have always been favored by the common law of England' ( Eaker v. Bryant, 24 Cal.App. 87 [ 140 P. 310])." ( In re Washer, 78 Cal.App. 759, 773 [ 248 P. 1068].) The court's conclusion that Warda was not liable is erroneous.

  6. E.C. Warner Co. v. W.B. Foshay Co.

    57 F.2d 656 (8th Cir. 1932)   Cited 13 times

    The regulation of interest charges by the state, and the enactment of usury laws, involve the exercise of the police power of the state. Griffith v. Connecticut, 218 U.S. 563, 31 S. Ct. 132, 133, 54 L. Ed. 1151; Missouri, K. T. Trust Co. v. Krumseig, 172 U.S. 351, 19 S. Ct. 179, 182, 43 L. Ed. 474; Althaus v. State, 99 Neb. 465, 156 N.W. 1038; State v. Cary, 126 Wis. 135, 105 N.W. 792, 11 L.R.A. (N.S.) 174; Ex parte Washer, 78 Cal.App. 759, 248 P. 1068. In Griffith v. Connecticut, supra, in an opinion by Mr. Justice White, it is said: "It is elementary that the subject of the maximum amount to be charged by persons or corporations subject to the jurisdiction of a state for the use of money loaned within the jurisdiction of the state is one within the police power of such state.

  7. In re Frazier

    No. 10-14148 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011)

    California usury laws were designed to penalize lenders taking advantage of unwary and necessitous borrowers. Buck v. Dahlgren (1972) 23 Cal. App. 3d 779, 787, citing White v. Seitzman (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 756, 761; Wooton v. Coerber (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 142, 148; In re Washer (1926) 78 Cal.App. 759, 771-772. California courts have regularly held that, absent fraud on the part of the borrower, the parties are not in pari delicto in a usurious transaction. Heald v. Friishansen (1959) 52 Cal.2d 834, 837.

  8. In re Frazier

    No. 10-14148 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Oct. 15, 2011)

    California usury laws were designed to penalize lenders taking advantage of unwary and necessitous borrowers. Buck v. Dahlgren (1972) 23 Cal.App. 3d 779, 787, citing White v. Seitzman (1964) 230 Cal.App.2d 756, 761; Wooton v. Coerber (1963) 213 Cal.App.2d 142, 148; In re Washer (1926) 78 Cal.App. 759, 771-772. California courts have regularly held that, absent fraud on the part of the borrower, the parties are not in pari delicto in a usurious transaction. Heald v. Friishansen (1959) 52 Cal.2d 834, 837.

  9. Sanderson v. Salmon River Canal Co.

    45 Idaho 244 (Idaho 1927)   Cited 47 times
    Holding that laws affecting the value of a contract may nonetheless be constitutional because not “every statute which affects the value of a contract impair its obligation”

    If objection is made to the maintenance lien statute on the ground of improper classification we reply that the only one who can complain of discrimination is the Carey Act Construction Company, in this instance, the Twin Falls Salmon River Land and Water Company. ( Ex parte Washer, 78 Cal.App. 759, 248 P. 1068; 12 C. J. 768, and cases there cited.) "The directors of any corporation formed or existing under the laws of this state after one-fourth of its capital stock has been subscribed may, for the purpose of paying expenses, conducting business, or paying debts, levy and collect assessments upon the subscribed capital stock thereof in the manner and form and to the extent herein provided."

  10. In re Application of W. Washer

    200 Cal. 598 (Cal. 1927)   Cited 26 times

    Petitioner was convicted and imprisoned for violation of the statute known as the "Usury Act," the complaint alleging that he "did wilfully and unlawfully ask, demand, receive, take, accept and charge of and from" certain individuals more than twelve per cent per annum on a $7,000 loan "for the forbearance, use and loan of said sum of money; payment . . . being secured by an evidence of debt, to wit: a trust deed upon real property . . . and by a promissory note" executed in favor of petitioner. The district court of appeal rendered a decision discharging the writ of habeas corpus and remanding petitioner to custody ( In re Washer, 78 Cal.App. 758 [ 248 P. 1068]), whereupon he again petitioned for his release from durance upon the ground, as hereinafter set forth, that the said Usury Law is unconstitutional and void. This contention requires a consideration of the statute approved by popular vote November 5, 1918 (Stats.