The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-07-31
| STATE SUPREME COURT.
Nv INTfRTSTIN DECISION TO MOI
DERs or BUILDING FUND sfOch.
The Fines Assessed for Non-Payment OF
Dues Are Not Cuuiuiatiye-other
Important Cases.

OF Roanoke. Revered. opinion by Judge
Keith, president.
The question in this case IS upon the
power OF the building association to I'M
pose fines increasing Ia arithmetcal pro-
erosion from month 10 month. Inc
charter provides that there shall be a
fine OF twenty cents Oh all stock pledged
FOR each and every month. the payment
may bee I'm arrears. The bylaws upon
the subject is
Borrowing members who Shah neglect
70 pay any nstallments on stock ana III
terest on their loan as the same becomes
due shall pay TO the association me
OF twenty cents per month on edch >lVV,
they may have borrowed from the as
soc'ation" Dupuy and his wife borrow
"a $3.50 10 be repaid In monthly payments.
They were in default la the month OF
June 1Sg2 and the property was advertised
for sale in February 1873. Dupuy aad
his wife obtained an Injunction defend
ant company answered. The contention
OF the plaintiff was that they We're prop
erly fined twenty cents per share on each
800. on the $3.50 loan, amounting 10 >ll'
and that this fine OF 81 was TO be i'm
posed FOR each and every month that the
default continued. The contention OF
the defendant company was that the fine
was TO be repeated for each and every
month that he delinquency OF the borrow
or continues ia default should be made
In the payment OF the January install
ment fine OF twenty cents per share
would be imposed. amounting Ia this ease
upon the $3.50 TO 81. that If default con-
tinued during tho month OF February, a
fine OF twenty cents per share, or <1
~ the aggregate. should be imposed for
this new default. and another fine q an
equal amount for the continued default
which had occurred in January. making
81. that in March. there should be a
lno FOR the default Of that month and a
fine also for the continued default OF that
month and a fine also for the continued
default in the January and February In
stailments. making In the aggregate $50
Sna so on for as many months as tho
default might continue. From table
which IS printed with the petition Tor the
appeal in his case. the correctness Of
which IS unchalenged. IL appears that &C
cc-ding 90 this system the total fines Tor
the first year would amount 70 SSsS and
u the default continued 10 the ma
turity Of tia last note payable at seventy
eight months from tho date OF the loan
the aggregate o. fines would be S'3q15. The
Court after citing Gndlich on Building As
sociauons second cd. sec. 4lg. ana shan
nm va The Howard Mutual Building
Association s5 Ma 3.3. said. we are Of
opinion that relying upon the authorities
just cited We would be warranted On hold
ms that the proper construction of the
article from The constitution above quot
ga limits The power OF the society 10 the
frstr. @ f..ar
and docs not sanction IT'S repetition. The
construction ~ the bylaws is yet more
free from doubt than that OF the cOnsti-
tuition and upon that We prefer TO rest
orr decision. Tho amount borrowed IN
this case was $500. A fine Of twenty
cents ON each 800 amounts In the AK
gregaie 90 Sil and the payment of fine
OF sll per month would therefore seem q
satisfy ihe terms of the bylaw above
quoted. The articles ~ The association
prescribed the limits within which tho
corporation can properly act the bylaws
indicates the extent 20 which the corpora
ton has seen ut tO put into action the
powers which the articles have conferred
and though the charter or articles. in
comforting the power may use im9cra-
Use or mandatory language. yet if % Dee
benefit, % privilege or advantage con-
fcrrrI upon tho corporation and net r.
duty imposed 10 may qualify. diminish
or waive its exercise in whole or in part.
To D. binding upon the association ~
The sense that the bylaws may ,rdain
fines Oi less hut may not orltin fl.s o.
gitdtcr amount than those prescribed hy
its charter. IT, therefore. there were
any rcpuenancy between the charter and
the bylaws. it the charter imposed r.
would consider that n the adoption Il
the bylaw the corporation had found it
wise and cXped.ent 90 foreso 10 cxcrcis,
of "a T. rtiOn of ths power conferred upon
it by The charter would deem 10 a waive
% that extent of it's privilege: ana would
enforce The hne imposed hy the bylaw"
Hess and others rs. Gale and others.
From tine Hastings Court Of Roanoke.
Reversed. Opinion hv Keith
Frederick Hess filed petition uuler
section 2t2j of the Code of Nirginn. in
tho Hastings Court for the city of Roa-
n0kc. aFcrrng that he was tho owner
or certain real estate which he had con-
tracted 10 SELL That his WIFE Mary Hess
WAS of unsOund mind aud was. therefore,
incompetent 70 unite in a conveyance Of
said property. and he prayed that a COM
missioner might Dee appointed under the
section citeI, u report whether she had
IL contingent right Of dover in the same.
" so. the value thereof. and what sum
should Dee set apart out of the proceeds
of the sale In lieu OF such contingent
r.lhi of doW>r. and that IT. special com
missioner might be appointed 10 convey
said rghC This was done. the commits
s.oner was appointed the enquiry made,
tAe wilos right ascertained, and her IN
Thereafter the husband died, and Mary
Hess. tho insane wife. filed her bill ~
her next friend. claiming dover and
alleging that the proceedings upon the pc
ttl0n were, as 20 her. null and void. ana
in DO Way binding upon her, she not hav-
ing been made 90 party thereto. This bill
was dcmurrcd 10 upon the ground that
section -G-J did not contemplate a pro-
ccci.ng inter parties. but WAS wholly eN-
palte. that an insane wife therefore could
not properly be brought before the court
under that proceeding, that the cOntln-
gent rsnt OF dover is not proper, and
that it was within the power OF the leg.s-
laure 10 destroy 10 without giving the
wife an opportunity 10 be heard. The
court here holds that without undertake
ing 90 follow the argument adiuced as 20
the precise character OF tho right Of the
wife in the reaf estate OF her husband
during ms lifetime, known as tne incnOate
or contingent right OF dover. it is plain
that section 1920 does recognize a right
ia the wife which must pass from her
10 the purchaser In order 10 give him q
fun and complete title. The court Is by
the statute required 20 take from the in
sano wife a right. aud the procedure is
prescribed by which that right shall pass
| ~ nnl, Nasf anOther This IS a lnalclal