Show CASE AS Of fR FRENZIED FRANCE fiNANCE IT SAYS Supreme Court Remands I Suit Brought Against Implement Implement Im Im- Im Concern Unconstitutional Unconstitutional Un constitutional It t Says ays Th The Supreme Court ourt gave ga an opinion this morning remanding the case of A. A F. F Christensen n against the Colorado Investment Investment Investment Invest Invest- ment Loan company compan back to the lower court with directions to modify its findings findings find find- ings and judgment The opinion comes omes from the pen of Chief Justice McCarty and Is concurred in b by Justices Frick and It brings to light a state of frenzied financing that the court asserts is unconscionable and cannot be According to the understanding of ot the I court A. A F F. Christensen Was a stockholder in the company and had paid on the stock Desiring a loan he applied to the company for tor It A certificate was Issued to him authorizing the loan and he se secured secured see se- c cured red 1800 1500 on a note and mortgage on real estate from one The note drew 8 per cent Interest He then went 1 to the company and borrowed the re remaining remaining reo re- to make it 2000 I The com company pan assumed the 1800 note I conditional that it would keep up the I payments so long as he continued to pay the company For this Christensen gave the company a second mortgage and took twenty shares of stock which was tho same as a note amounting to 2000 Christensen was to pay 30 a month to the company Of this amount 10 applied on the stock and 20 went as Interest He continued to pay at this rate for for for- four ty-four months Then he demanded an accounting He found that counting the he lie had paid before the loan he had paid into the company 1448 1445 The accounting accounting accounting ac ac- ac- ac counting showed that of ot this amount was all that had been paid on the stock and had gone for interest Of Ot the interest 5 it went on the fife note and the 36 remaining was retained as interest by the company on Its loan |