The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1875-06-03
Nisftiianenus.
Important Decision.
BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIA-
TIONS-SUPREME COURT DECIS-
ION--GENERAL DOCKET:

hV1 %
We give herewith the text of the de-
oision touching Building and Loan Asso-
Citations, as taken from the general dock ct
of the Supreme Court Of this State:
SUPREME CouRT-GENERAL DOCKET.
May l& 1875
No. 597. The Forest City United Land
and Building Association vs.. Ferrell e.
Gallagher ct al. Errov to the Superior
Court of Cleveland.
WHrrE, j. Held:sri"nF
|. The act of February q 1857, author
izing building and loan associations to be-
come Incorporated, as provided in GER
tain sections of the "act to provide for
the creation and regulation of incorpor-
ated companies" passed May |, 1882,
hasreference to the sections named which
were then in force, and not to the orig
inal sections which had been repealed.
2. The sections in the act OF 1882 are
referred to as prescribing the course TO
be pursued by persons desiring to become
incorporated for the purpose of avalllng
themselves Of the privileges OF the act OF
February q, 1867; and the last named
act is not an amendment of such sections
within the meaning of Sec. /, Art. 2, OF
the Constitution.
5. The advancing of money by build
ing associations to its members, as pro-
vided in the act of February 2l, 1867, is
not the exercise of banking powers.
4. Building associations are not author
lied to charge interest on the premiums
allowed for procedure in taking loans.
The money actually advanced is the
basis for the computation Of interest.
5. Fines cannot be imposed for default
in the payment of interest on loans; nor
can more than one fine be assessed III
respect to the same installment of stated
dues.
Judgment reversed, and cause remand
ed for restatement of the account
No. $40. Christopher Hagerman ct al.
vs.. the Ohio Building and Savings Asso-
Oiation ct al.
And
No. G23. John D. Mercer ct al. VS.. the
Concordia Building and Savings Associa..
citation. Error to the Supreme Court OF
Montgomery county.
MoILvAINE, c. j. Held:
1. Where an association of persons in
good faith, attempt to organize as a cor
poration under the act of February 2lj
1867, (94 0: L. iS) and afterward com
menced and carried on business as Il
building corporation, its members and
others who have contracted with 1t as
such corporation, are estopped in asult on
such contract, from setting up the defense
of no corporation on account OF defect
in its certificate of Incorporation.
2. The fact that member of such cor
poration holds q greater number Of
shares than is now allowed by its by
laws, but not in excess of the number
limited by the statute, is no defense
against any claim which the corporation
may have against him on account ofsuch
shares.
8. Building corporations are not re-
quired to ascertain the use to which a
member who obtains loan on his stock,
intends to apply the money
4. Such corporations, under the act of
May 8, 1868, 6. and S. l94,) may. by its
bylaws, assess and collect q reasonable
fine from member of the association,
Y for default in the payment of this stated
due, but cannot assess or collect more
than one fine for the non-payment of the
same stated due; and there is no power
conferred upon the corporation to levy,
assess or collect fine for any default in
the payment of interest on loans ad-
VanCed.
s. Where loan isadvanced to mem
Der upon his stock, it is within the Ca
pacity ofthe corporation to take security
from such member by mortgage or other
wise for the payment of fines as well as
pstated dues which may be lawfully as
Sessed on account of such stock
6. The payment of stated dues and
fines cannot be resisted by a member on
the ground, that the bylaws of the asso-
station have not been adopted by a vote
of the directors, where it appears that
they have been recorded, acted upon and
enforced as the bylaws of the assoca-
ton.
7. After breach of the condition of a
mortgage given to secure the payment OF
stated dues, interest on loans advanced,
and fines, the decree in an action TO fore
close should be confined to the amount
of such dues, interest and fines, then due
and unpaid
8. In computing the time for which
notice of sale on execution should be
advertised before the day of sale, as pre-
scribed in section 436 of the code, the day
on which the notice was first published
may be included, and the day of sale
must be excluded. Section 597 does not
apply in such case. When the notice is
published in a daily paper, as authorized
by section 495, it is sufficient, il the first
publication be thirty days before the day
of sale.
Judgts reversed and causes remanded,
etc.
No. 449. James Mcbride and another
VS.. Forest City United Land and Build
ing Association. Reversed on authority
ofNo. 597 general docket, and cause re-
manded.