Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-10-11
BUILDING SOCIETIES.
Tho Partnership Plan OF Dividing Profits
Sustained = Deoision by the Pennsyl-
vHutu Supreme Court.

AHo harthership i'ihu OF DiNiutup rrohts
Sustained = Decision by the Pennsyl-
Tapia supreme Court.
The Pennsylvania supreme court has
just decided building association case
that has been in court since 1888, and
decided in favor Of the borrower against
the association. II was the Charles
Tyrrel Loan and Building Association
vs.. Jeremiah Haley. Mr.. Haley was a
borrower and ceased paying his dues
when he felt assured that the stock of
the society had matured, although the
report OF the society did not show ma
turity for the series to which Mr.. Haley
belonged. The society was very sue
cessful and had large profits. Some of
the series had large percentages of gains
credited to them and the older series
very small percentages, and, as Mr..
ialey was In q series which he claimed
WAS not receiving justice he demanded
a cancellation OF his mortgage on q basis
of much greater gains than were offered
No him. The court says: "When this
case was here before the Judgment was
reversed because OF the rejection OF tho
defendants offer ~ prove that tho stock
OF the eighth series, in which he was n
stakeholder, had reached value Of 5000,
and was really worth S211.2d in No
vembcr, 1887. Chief Justice Paxson
then ruled that his association had no
right to recover o judgment against ono
of Its Stockholders for the amount of
the loan. If tho series had natured he
was entitled to stop paying and TO rely
ON the association surrenderlng his Sc
curities when the proper time arrived.
II, instead Of doing this, tho association
brings suit upon his mortgage, he can
surely set up an equitable defence and
show that his stock Inns matured. If
the defendant can sustain his offer he
has n full defence to the mortgage. and
we arc Of tho opinion the evidence
should have been admitted,
Acting upon this ruling the referee
in the present case admitted the owl
dence offered, and, upon \ considera-
ton OF the whole evidence upon this
subject, he decided that the testimony
sustained the offer, and that; in point of
fact, the stock OF the eighth series fully
matured in November, 1887, and was at
that timo worth $2i5.66.
NOW the correctness Of the finding
is not really attacked or impeached, but
1t is commended that the association pur-
sued another mode of determining when
its stock was matured, and, according to
that mode, this stock had not. quite ma.
tured by becoming of the value OF 5000
in November, 1887 and that the defend
ant is bound by the method of compu-
tation adopted by the association and is
estopped from alleging or setting up any
other mode. v Tho share of
stock In question had run l0t years, and
averaging its time ut 81 years at 1879 per
annum, makes 721 per cent which, on
Sl28 paid on stock, produces profit of
1886. Adding to it tho amount paid
on stock, 1926, makes each share worth
$2l6,66. After an examination of the
testimony we regard this fair method
of computing the value of the stock,
where it is issued IN several series, and
that, In these respects, it is altogether
superior to the mode pursued by the
plaintiff.
"a question is suggested whether
there should not be valuation of all
the shares of the series at any time
when question arises as to the yalua.
ton of the shares of particular mem
Der, and whether, therefore, \ bill in
equity ought not to be filed in order to
bring in all parties interested. The de-
PENDANT can make his defence in the
action on the bond without being
obliged to resort to such proceeding,
but it would not be an inappropriate
course to pursue, and one with which
it would not be possible to find fault,
as the absolute value of every share
would, or might, by that means, be de-
termined with accuracy. We are not
disposed to turn the defendant out of
court for not pursuing his remedy in
that way. The assignments of error
are all dismissed" 1t was shown that
the total rate of gain on all the money
Invested was over ID per cent per
annum, and the supreme court feels
that tho partnership plan, which gives
every dollar invested like per cent
per annum, is "a fair method OF COM
putting the value of the stock"