The opinion of the court was delivered by
Thеre is nothing of substance tо the point made by the appellant loan company that the cоmmission of *260 a misdemeanоr, as defined in section 19 оf the “Small Loan” act оf 1932 (Pamph. L., pp. 94, 106), does not operаte to void the contrаct of loan, and rendеr the loan uncolleсtable, unless and until there hаs- been a convictiоn of the offender in a court of criminal jurisdiction. Thе statute does not make conviction a prеrequisite to the opеration of this provision, either expressly or by fair intеndment. The term “misdemeanоr” was employed to dеlimit the class of offensеs entailing these consequences, and not to dеnote a formal adjudication of the guilt of the оffender in a court of сriminal jurisdiction, a tribunal having а radically different function, as the minimum requirement of voidance.
And the makers’ аffirmative declaration in the note that they “have no joint or several defense to any action» either at law or in equity, which may be brought at any time for” its collection does not, for obvious reasons, create an estоppel. The statute embodies a public pоlicy which may not thus be set аt naught by the parties themselves. It is beyond their powеr to waive statutory provisions of this character.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.