The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1895-05-19

Pomeroy, 10th United States 221.
The case OF Building and Loan Asso-
citation OF Dakota against Logan, very
recently decided by the United States
Circuit Court OF Appeals for the Fifth
circuit (not yet reported), Is q case di-
rectly In point. There building asso-
citation contract for loan of money
was entered into in the State OF Texas
but made payable in the State of D.
kota, ct the home Office of the company.
The court held that unless the place Of
payment sgreed on was fixed for the
purpose OF obtaining higher rate Of
interest. the law Of the State where the
money was payable would control the
rate OF interest. And said furthermore:
rs is to be observed, however, that the
suit is upon bond condition for the
payment OF money, and that the qLes-
ZION OF It's being lien upon real estate
In the State OF Texas, ia, in the view
we take OF 1t, now out of she case"
Oiting the case of Sturdevant against
Bank. 9th @. G. A. $50 8. @. Goth Fed
eral Reporter 7sO. in which the court
held that note, executed and delivered
In one State and payable In another, is
governed ss to the admissibility Of de.
1enee against On endorsee by the law of
the latter State, even when sued on in
the State where IL was executed.
In the case OF Miller against Tifiny,
supra, the oours said: "a person con.
srsoting for the payment of interest,"
may contract TO pay 1t either at the
place OF contract or at that Of the place
OF performance, as one or the other NAV
Dc agreed On by himself and the cred-
itor, and the fact that the rate of the
place, at which IL ia agreed that IL shall
be paid. Ia higher than the rate in the
other place will not expose the contract
to the imputation Of usury, unless the
place agreed on was fixed for the pur-
pose OF obtaining higher rate, and to
avoid the penalty of usurious contract
at the other place."
l have also examined with considera-
Bile profit and interest, the long line of
decisions, bearing out this view of the
subject. cited in the brief filed before
me By the learned counsel for the $3.50
olation, but will not undertake to refer
to them here:
My conclusion Is that this contract.
the bona fides of which has not been
assaulted by any proof whatever, was a
contract to be performed in tho State
OF New York; that such contract ia
not usurious by the laws of that State,
ana that those laws must prevail In the
trial OF this case.
come now to consider the charge sat
up In the complainant's amended bill,
tnat this contract cannos be enforced ut
Oil. because, az alleged, the defendants
association failed to comply with the
statute law of Virginia in not recording
IFS charter in accordance with the laws
OF Virginia.
The record in this case shows the fol-
lowing TO be the facts: That under the
statute law OF the State of New York
passed on the 10th day of April, 1851,
and amendments thereof, the defendants
association was organized by filing in
the office OF the clerk of the CITY and
county Of New York it's articles of asso-
citation, signed and acknowledged bv II.
Q. Allemong and eight others, a certified
copy OF which Is in this record. Byre
ference to Article 80 of said association
provision Is made tor the amendment of
said articles OF association.
1t further appears that on the 18th
day OF April 1885, the said articles of
association were re-drafted, re-arranped
and amended; the original thirty.nine
articles being boiled down into seven
teen articles. The amendment appears
to have been recorded ON the goth day
OF April 1889, In the clerks office of the
county and city of New York, duly GER
titled copies Of which were filed with
the answer of the defendant ASSOC Iation.
After this amendment, which superseded
the original articles OF association. said
association commenced business in this
city, and filed in the clerks office of
this city copy OF said amended articles
OF association, which were there re-
coroed and then transmitted to the Sec
rotary OF the commonwealth for recorda-
tion.
Although 1t appears that the articles
OF association filed here are not signed
by the incorporators, yet this document
contains their amended articles of as
ISOLATION, which were not required to be
signed, but the original articles of as
aociation were signed and duly recorded
in the State of New York. The tncor-
porators by this statute OF New York
having full authority thus to amend
their articles Of association, and I seq
nothing requiring them to sign such
amended articles. 1 think the paper
recorded here is the charter and that it
was not necessary for the incorporates
to sign that paper.
don't think the obiec ton based unon
this ground is tenable. In fact / seri-
ously question whether defenses of this
Kind should be entertained by a court
OF chencery at the instance of Dor.
rover OF money, whatever may be tho
right OF the commonwealth to proceed
against the offending party. Certainly
the court would be very loath to annul
this contract whore there had been a
substantial compliance with the statute
In question, and the association had
evinced desire upon Its part to comply
with Its requirements.
Further objection is urged as to the
regularity OF the appointment of an
attorney in fact to represent said as
ISOLATION In this city. The record shows
that Henry Gibson was duly appointed