Commonwealth v. Derstine
Commonwealth v. Derstine
Dissenting Opinion
Dissenting Opinion by
I believe that the purpose of the Small Loans Act was to regulate only the business of making small loans and not isolated transactions. The act uses the word
It is my opinion that in these cases the Commonwealth also should prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the borrower was an individual “pressed by lack of funds to meet immediate necessities.” The title of the act clearly limits the coverage of the act to loans of this nature. I disagree with the majority’s view that any court may take judicial notice of the fact that no reasonable person would borrow |300 or less at usurious interest unless he were in need of what are considered to be necessities. My experience of our times teaches me the opposite.
Therefore, I would grant the motion in arrest of judgment.
Opinion of the Court
Opinion
The judgment of sentence of the court below is affirmed on the excellent opinion of Judge John P. Fullam reported in 33 Pa. D. & C. 2d 706 (1964), and it is ordered that appellant appear in the court below at such time as he may there be called, and that he be by that court committed until he has complied with his sentence or any part of it which had not been performed at the time the appeal was made a supersedeas.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.