On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam opinion is printed in 10 N.J. Mis. R. 128.
For the appellant, Green & Green, R. Randolph Hicks and William C. Scott (of the New York bar).
For the respondent, Morris Isserman and Abraham J. Isserman.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
DONGES, J. This appeal brings up a judgment of the Supreme Court affirming a judgment in favor of the plaintiff-respondent secured in the First District Court of the city of Newark for $165, being the amount which the plaintiff had theretofore paid to the defendant-appellant on account of a certain note which was annexed to the state of demand, which the plaintiff-respondent alleges was void and of no effect as being in violation of section 5 of chapter 49 of the laws of 1914, known as the Small Loan act.
The note in question appears to evidence the promise to pay the sum of $330 as follows, as appears on the face of the note:
Newark, N.J., Nov. 25, 1929.
For value received, we, jointly and severally promise to pay to the order of The Morris Plan Corporation of New Jersey, at its office in the city of Newark, the sum of three hundred and thirty dollars, in amounts as follows: $33 a month after date and the balance in nine equal successive monthly installments of $33 each on the same day of each month beginning two months after the date hereof, with interest on each installment after its maturity at the rate of 3% per month.
If any installment of this note is not paid at the time specified herein, the entire amount unpaid shall become due and payable forthwith at the election of the holder of the note.
Each of the undersigned and each of the endorsers on the back hereof hereby waives presentment, demand, protest and notice of demand, protest ...