Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

115 Neb. 395

Phillips v. Hunt

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided April 12, 1927

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1927-04-12

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1950

1 state decisions

Relies on Klattenburg v. Qualsett

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1927-04-12

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This suit is an ordinary proceeding in equity instituted by appellee, Phillips, herein called plaintiff, to foreclose a mortgage on certain real estate in Madison county. Appellant, Hunt, hereinafter called defendant, interposed an answer challenging the power of the state to enact a statute fixing interest rates chargeable on loans of money, owing to the provisions of section 8, art. I of the federal Constitution, as follows: “The congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.” To this answer the plaintiff interposed a general demurrer, which was sustained. The facts pleaded in the answer are those set forth in the case of Klattenburg v. Qualsett, 114 Neb. 18, in which the question here presented was considered by us and decided adversely to the contention of defendant. While the answer in this instant case amplifies somewhat the facts alleged in the answer in the previous case, a careful consideration leads us to conclude that the law as announced in the Klattenburgcase is controlling.

¶2*396Our attention has also been called to the preamble of the federal Constitution, sometimes designated as the general welfare clause. This, we have considered in connection with our previous holding, but incline to the opinion that it in no manner modifies or limits the provisions of such section 8, art. I, under consideration.

¶3It follows that error was not committed by the trial court in sustaining the demurrer, and in entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

¶4Affirmed. ,

/115/neb/395 · .json · Public domain