The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1895-05-03
AN 1mPonrANr pREoEDENr.
Decree Against Building aud Loan AS,
soCiatfons.

AN 4mEOHVANTP PRECEDENT,
a Decree Against Building aud Loan As
sociations.
The TIMES In recent issue referred
| to an important decision rendered by
Judge Shelley in the circuit court of
Washington county, Va, in the suit OF
Nd. j. Ashworth against the National
Mutual building and Loan Assooiat ton
OF New York. Judge a. j. Brand has
handed us paper containing the de-
| cree In full, entered In the cause, and
the same being to much interest to the
members Of the bar and our people gen.
orally, is given below:
Mary j. Ashworth, complainant, on
original and amended bills, Va, National
Mutual Building and Loan Association,
ct al, defendants; and National Mutual
Building and Loan Association, COM
plainants, on Cross bill, VS.. Mary J..
Ashworth, defendant.
These causes, not having been decided
In vacation, came on to be heard In
term, this 23rd day OF April, 1895, upon
the original and amended bills, the
demurrer and answer thereto, the CROSS
bill and demurrer and answer thereto,
the nffidavits and exhibits fled and ex-
captions thereto, the agreement of facts,
and the argument Of counsel, on consid-
GRAFTON whereof, 1t appearing to the
court from the transcript from the offlco
OF the secretary of the commonwealth of
Virginia, that the articles OF inoorpora-
tion therein contained is not such o
paper as is referred to in Section ,1O4 of
the code OF Virginia Of 1887, nor in the
Virginia statute approved March S,
1890, (Acts $4,000, p. 17O); that while
1t purports to be articles of association
between nine persons, it does not give
NJ Of l.
signed by them as required by Section 2
of the New York statute "for the incor
poration Of building, mutual loan and
accumulating fund associations" passed
April 10, 1851, and exhibited In said trans
cript; that the filing in the office of the
clerk OF the county, in which the associ-
alton shall transact its business, of
true copy Of such articles, signed by the
officers Of the association, together with
a statement showing when the associa-
ton was organic I'D, and the place Of the
transaction of it's business, and the
names Of the officers and trustees ut the
time Of making such statement, which
shall be verified by affidavit, was, BY
section Of the said New York statute,
made, in effect, condition precedent to
the incorporation OF the persons who
have subscribed the articles OF the as
ISOLATION as aforesaid, and such other
persons as shall become mem ers and
their successors; that, lacking several
OF these requisites, the recordation was
unauthorized, both in New York and in
Virginia. and carried with 1t none Of
the extraordinary powers claimed; that,
not having furnished satisfactory evil
dence that they had complied with the
laws of the State under which they
claim to have, been chartered, as re-
CURED by section of the Virginia
statute Of March S, 1890, and not having
required with the other requirements Of
the last named sta tute, they are for
hidden, under the first section of same,
to solicit or take subscription of their
stock, loan out money, or carry on any
transactions pertaining to the business
OF such associations and companies
within this State.
And this court being further Of the
opinion that the so-called charter shows
upon Its face that the company did not
comply with the New York statute,
and that 1t ie not protected in its claims
OF extraordinary powers by any statutes
overriding the interest laws of this
State, and the court being of the opinion
that the transaction complained of Is
usurlous and must be governed by the
laws OF this State. but the complainant
ooH with, NY COuubcli having AQmlLL6Q
that said association was duly incorpo-
rated under the laws of New York, and
having dealt with same as such, the
said association must be regarded and
treated for the purposes OF this cause as
an incorporated company, and Is there
fore adjudged, ordered and decreed
that the complainant in the original
and amended bills, Mrs. M. j. Ash
worth, Is enti lied to relief by having
her debt reduced to the principal ac-
tually received, and to have this still
further reduced by crediting on the
principal all payments Of every discr'p-
tion made by her to said association,
whether entrance fees, monthly dues,
interest or premiums, all being parts of
the same unauthorized transactions and
required to be repaid to her.
And it ia further adiudged, or ordered
and decreed that Mrs. M. J.. Ashworth
recover of the defendants her costs of
her suit on the original and amended
bills and the costs of her defense to the
cross bill, and when the residue Is ascer-
tanned, the said association will be en-
titled to dissolution of the injunction
to that extent and to decree for said
residue, which II not paid within rea-
sonable time may be enforced by:a sale
under the deed Of trust.