Liberty Finance Co. v. Schlissler

TJrner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Liberty Finance Company, a corporation licensed under the Petty Loan Law (Code-, art. 58A), made a loan -of $300 on September 9th, 1925, and received as security an ⁵⁸⁶ assignment from the borrower of any wages then or thereafter earned by him in his existing or any future employment. The pending suit in equity is to enforce the assignment as against wages accruing to the debtor on and after May 18th, 1932. On this appeal from a decree dismissing the bill of complaint, the principal argument has been concerned with the question whether the plaintiff sufficiently complied with certain statutory requirements in its efforts to avail itself of the assignment.

In our opinion, it is not necessary to decide that question, because the assignment is sought to be enforced after the expiration of the period to which its possible operation is limited by law. Section 16 of article 8 of the Code of Public General Laws provides: “Every assignment of wages to be earned in whole or in part more than six (6) months from and after the making of such assignment, shall be absolutely void.” In this case an assignment of wages is proposed to be enforced more than six and a half years after its execution. The quoted limitation upon such agreements, as to the time of their effectiveness, was included in a statute antedating the Petty Loan Act, which contains no such provision, and the two enactments! are embodied in separate articles of the Code. It is the appellant’s theory that the assignment now in question, which purports to have been executed under the Petty Loan Act, is unrestricted with respect to the time of its enforcement.

In our judgment, that theory is not sustainable. Article 8 of the Code, in its sections 11 to 17, enacted by chapter 399 of the Acts of 1906, is concerned generally with the subject of the assignment of wages, while article 5 8A, enacted by chapter 88 of the Acts of 1918, regulates, in its section 17, assignments of wages as security for petty loans made by licensees under that act. The former act was not repealed by the latter (Wight v. Balto. & O. R. Co., 146 Md. 66 , 125 A. 881 ), and they must both be given effect to the extent to which their terms are