The Roanoke daily times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1895-1897, 1896-05-15
Jons p. nuD.os,
w., >,rr R,'no 4 l.. Assod

NATL NUT. BLDG ~ ~ AcSo~i HJ.tttU
he never entered inlo any contract TO bc per-
formed in the state of New forK, ana Stnough
his contract expressly 80 sites, never,hSscss II
was never the intention OF the parties teat II
should De 30 performed; mat the cohraet was
made payable in New York Tor the pu.Poeo OF
evading the usury laws OF Virginia ana theA con
tract, 20 tar as It has been performed, haeA oy
he construction which The parties themselves
In this case. the Association admits that the
local treasurer Is their agent, tnat IL spPoih.eu
him, that ii requires bond OF BIN: anu lnat me
duties arc set ios,h in ths bond Mr. Peet ano
MIR. Sutherland. officers Of this Company. nave
testified In substance rs follows: THAT thie loch
collector was authorized to eoiiect al tne enss
payable to 1t 10y parties In Roanoke; out thst ths
collector did not have authority 70 collect lnc
back 10 gross the amount he borrowed. That
these local collectors arc appointed for the mu,
t1a CONVENIENCE OF the COMPANY ana ts ,n iee Of
the Company to appoint this local collector
wherever the number of borrowers III any place
was sufficient to justify the appointment Thst
have been connected with the Con pRny, ana TINS
local trca.urer is paid q commission on ms eqi.
lecuon, and is paid by the Association. INST AT
the time the plaintiff HudsJn entered into MS
contract with this ompany. twas contemplated
between the parties that he would make all his
payments to this local treasurer, though AZ WAS
optional vito Hudson whether he did this or not
Yet, ts stated q owe, II Was contemplated between
the parties, that he would thus make Ms pay
ments. The appointment OF sRch local treas
urer has been deemed by the Company to be
good policy. 1t WAS not only convenience TO
me Company and lite stockhoders; but such a
policy might tend to increase the business OF the
Uompany. That after Hudson had made all
these payments Of int rest, premium, dues d
fines to tho local collector, until his stock ma
.ured. his contract had been completely per
formed upon his part, save and except the execu-
.ion OF the receipt by him to the Company for
hls insured STOCK"
The oficsrs OF this Company hsve testified that
before engaging In ousinessin Virginia they en-
gagged counsel TO examine the interest laws Of
this State. Subsequently they made this con-
tract prividing in terms that 4 should be per-
formed in New York yet with no intention on
the psrt OF either party to the contract that II
should or would be performed there 1t appears
me that this provision was not inserted in good
faith, and must be construed az intended to evade
the usury laws OF Virginia.
ehall, therefore, hold that since 1t WAS con-
tcmplsted by the parties at the time the con.
tract was entered into, that Hudson not only had
the rign but that he would exercise that right
to pei form his part OF the contract in the State
OF Virginia. ana since he has actually performed
1t up to some time prior to the institution OF this
suit in the State or Virginia, this is a Virg mia
contract, and the charges in the contract being
in my opinion, in excess OF six per cent, II is
INJURIOUS under the Virginia law.