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


suit o. Laura a. Meador vs.. c. a.
Vines, trustee, and the National Mutual
Building and Loan Association, OF New
York, has attracted considerable atten-
tion and is case in which some impor--
tant points are involved, 1t is as fol-
lows:
In the circuit court for the city of Roa-
noke, Va, Laura A. Meador vs.. G.
81. Vines, trustee. and National
Mususl Building and Loan Assocla-
ton OF New York.
This cause comes on to be heard on
the original bill OF the complainant
praying for In Injunction against the
execution OF q certRin deed of trust in
favor OF the defendant association for
the sum Of $4,000 and alleging that the
contract upon which said indebtedness
was founded Is usurious; and upon the
injus.ion order granted by the Judge of
this court ON the 3Osh day OF October,
1894, the amended bill Of the com.
plhinans in which II Is alleged that the
defendant association has failed TO
properly record It's charter In the State
OF Virginia; upon the answers of the
defendant to the original and amended
bills, and the various exhibits filed with
the pleadings, and on the motion of the
defendant to dissolve the Injunction
heretofore awarded; no dispositions
whatever wore taken in the case.
In considering the question of usury
on former day of this term OF court in
another case, L took occasion to re-
mark that unless the transaction under
consideration be purchase and sale of
the ssoak, the association, in order 80
successfully meet the plea of usury,
would have to shield itself behind some
legislative enactment, either of the
State OF Virginia or OF the foreign State
uudcr whose laws the association was
Incorporated. then stated that the
question as 10 whether the contract be
loan OF money or o sale OF stock must
DO determined by the real facts Of the
case, further stated that giving the
stock al collateral security for the
money actually received by the stock
holder, was not of itself inconsistent
with the idea OF a sale. See Junction
Railway Company against Bank of Ash
land 79ih o. g.. a55; 19ih West vir-
GINA 676 and other authorities cited.
case, however, in considering whether
this be nele OF stock, for IL correctly
apprehend the language of the defend
ants counsel ga set out on page 81 of
their printed brief they do not claim
this to be- sale.
We come then to consider. on
Whether there Is any legislative enact.
ment Of the State of New York, whereby
the defendant company here would have
the right, under the facts in the case, to
claim charges which would otherwise
be usurious. If it has, we need not con-
Germ ourselves further with reference to
the other questions discussed by coun-
sci as regards the question of usury.
The defendant association Is New
York corporation. organized in that
State, under and in pursuance OF an act
OF she legislature Of New York, passed
on the 10th day OF April, 1851, and the
several amendments thereof, entitled,
IAN act for the incorporation OF Build
Ing. Mutual, Loan and Accommodating
Fund Associations" certified copies of
which have been filed in the record in
this case. BY reference TO section 7 of
that act, 1t appears that transaction of
this kind ia not obnoxious 10 the usury
laws OF the State OF New York on the
contrary special rights and privileges
are conferred upon associations organ
lied under that act, declaring virtually,
that transactions of the character under
between the association
and it's mem bers, shall not be deemed q
Of the provisions OF any statute
against usury.
Is the contract under consideration a
New York contract or Virginia con-
tract? Upon the face of the bond, in the
application for the loan and deed of
trust 1t Is expressly stipulated that the
tract Is to be performed in the State
of New York, where the home office of
the defendant is. Although the com
plainant, in her bill, alleges the con-
tract to be usurious, she does not in
terms allege, nor undertake to prove It
TO be Virginia contract, or that the
defendant, In STIMULATING that the con-
tract should be performed in New York,
1ld IL for the purpose of evading the
lsury laws of this State. AS above
stated, the case comes On to be heard
upon the bill and answer alone, with no
proof on this question at all, other than
what may be gathered from the exhibits
HE'D; making the contract, prima facie
at least, New York contract. These
exhibits purport to give the whole Of
the contract and transaction between
The parties with reference to this loan.
1.-The true test Is the intention of the
parties" says Mr.. Daniel In his work on
negotiable instruments. In section 92S
Of his work, 10 found the following Ian
guaRe: I'm like manner although the
rate OF interest be greater than that al
lowed at she place where she contract is
made, Ii will not be usurious If allow
able ct the place OF payment; the parties
having the rights OF election as to she
laws Of the places by which their con-
tract is 30 be governed"
IN the case Of Junction Railway Com
pany against the Bank of Ashland, 10th