Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1876-08-05
The MINING JOURNAL.
FRosTBURG, MD, AUGUST s, 1s7e.

~ hled by Judge Pearre affectlng the
operations of peipstual building asso-
Citations. The case-No. 1876 Trusts
the Queen City Perpetual building
association Us. Conrad Robb and wife
is briefly stated in the following
quotations from our contemporary:
The defendant, Robb, owned two shares Of
the Queen City Perpetual building associa-
ton, at par value of $3.50 each, or $500
together. Alta sale of the right of redemp-
ton Robb purchased the right to redeem
his two shares at bonus of $S2 apiece.
The association paid him 1856 and retain
ed 1854 the bonus, "a small fraction of 80 per
cent fthe whole amount" taking mortgage
on Robb's property to secure the payment OF
the shares at par, and interest at six per
cent. After paying his dues, etc, for TWEEN
ty weeks the defendant defaulted and the
association sold his prperty under the pow
er contained in the mortg' ge The sale
was ratified by the court and an audit made
distributing the association the whole
amount realized, with interest and fines,
and allowing a commission of 8 per cent.
on $3.50 for which the property was sold,
in addition to the appearance fee Of $40, to
the solicitor Of the association, besides
printers bills and court costs" In the rat
ification of the audit an unsecured creditor
of Robb, whose name is not mentioned, fill
ed exceptions against the fees allowed the
solicitor and to the allowance to the associ-
alton of the whole sum of $500 with inter-
est on the ground that it was usurious.
The association then moved to dismiss the
exceptions on the ground that the except
ant was not lien creditor of Robb and
had no interest in the equity of redemption
Of his mortgaged property"
The first exception is sustained by the
Courts, and fees disallowed on the ground
that the association had by the terms of the
mortgage, aleady received enough ITO sat-
isfy Shylock,'' and should out of their prof.
its pay all such expenses. ....,..i... -.
The charging Of int crest upon $500, the
full amount Of the shares, when only 1864
had heen paid to the borrower, is declared
by the Court to be Illegal because usurious,
as the association was chartered under the
act of 1878, article 90, sections 80 to- 80 in
elusive, Of the code, which allows it to
charge the legal rate of interest only upon
the sum advanced to borrowers. The
charging of Interest upon sum greater than
that loaned ''is exempt from condemnation
by the usury laws of the State by tn: purest
technicality in the drawing of the mortgage,
which provides for the payment of a certain
sum weekly for an uncertain time" instead
of for the whole amount at once
The motion of the plaintiff to dismiss the
exceptions on the ground that the except
ant has not the proper standing in the court
Is CURLY dismissed, as follows: a
1t is wholly immaterial whether the party
filing the exceptions has or has not such q
standing in court as will enable him tc
maintain them. The matter has beer
brought to the attention of the Court; evi
dence has been taken which brings thu
facts to the notice of the Court; and it il
therefore the duty of the Court, when ask
ed to ratify the audit, to see that it complies
with the case made in the record and us i
appears upon its face.
The audit is pronounced erroneous, be
cause it should have allowed interest on
1854 instead Of $500. and for other lega
reasons.
The opinion concludes by rejecting the
auditors report and referring the proceed
ings back to that officer, "to take such ad
ditional testimony as the parties may desire
and state another account in conformity
with the opinion"
The case will be taken to the court O
appeals by the association, though upor
what grounds has not yet TRANSFERRED.
Without referring to the solicitor
fees, printers bills and court costs,
charged to Mr.. Robb, the declaration
of usurious interest is matter worth
examination. If in the unpublished
portions Of the opinion His Honor has
not covered the work and results tc
both lender and borrower, it is seri-
ously wanting in the fairness which
should distinguish judicial utterances
If he has ignored all consideration Of
the borrowers equal participation in
the profits realized through his alleg-
ed "usury," he has inflicted injustice
Either this or a gross omission on the
part of the Neaos obliges us to assume
neglect of this essentially important
phase of the subject. For instance, il
is said:
The charging of interest upon SEQ, tn,
full amount of the shares, when only $36.
had been paid to the borrower, is declared
by the court to he illegal because usurious
Let us see about this. Mr.. Robl
paid 30 per cent. premium, or $l64
for the use of 1856. At the same sale
probably, the 1854 was put up and re
allied 30 per cent, or $40 and if tn.
$40 was offered it realized $l4, and Sc
on so that it is within the range O
probability that Mr. Robb's pur
chase of the right to redeem two