Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-07-31
OUR HIGHEST COURT.
work OF THE coNMoNwEALTrrs
CHIEF JUDGES.
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN.
An Important nuiidius and Loan
Association Dccision-The Cues
tion OF Fines for Defaufts-A Dover
casc--Othcr Decisions.

IN the Supreme Court OF Appeals to-day:
w. T. Dupuy ct ais. VS.. the Eastern
Building Association. Opinion by Judge
lanes Keith. From the Hastings Court
81 Roanoke. Reversed.
The question in this case is upon the
power OF building associations 70 impose
a ines. increasing in arithmetical progress
sion from month 10 month. The charter
81 the association provides that there
shall be a fine OF % cents on all stock
pledged. for each and every month that
he payment may be in arrears. The by
aw upon the subject IS: borrowing MEM
pers. who shall neglect to pay any install
nents on stock and interest on their loan.
as the same becomes due. shall pay TO
the association a fine Of 20 cents per
month on each 800 they may have borrow
a from the association" Dupuy and wife
borrowed $500. TO be paid in monthly
oayments They were i'm default in the
month Of June. 1892, and the property was
advertised for sale In February, 1885.
Dupuy and wife obtained an Injunction
and defendant company answered. The
contention OF the plaintiffs was that they
we're properly fined 20 cents per snare
On each 800 on the $500 loan. amounting
10 sll. and that this fine Of 81 was 10 be
imposed for each and every month that
he default continued.
DEFENDANTS CONTENTION.
The contention OF the defendant com
,aov was that the fine was TO be repeated
Tor each and every month that the de-
anouency OF the borrower conunueu-i' e.
Il the default should be made IN the pay
nent OF the January instalment me
81 20 cents per share would be imposed
amounting in this case upon the N'oV 10
m. tbat ~ default continued during the
month OF February a. fine Of 70 cents per
snare or Sl1 in the aggregate. should De
Imposed for this new default, ana announcer
fne Of an equal amount for the continued
sefault which had occurred In January
making 81: that in March there shoulo De
fine for the default OF that month ana
q fine also FOR the continued detauit OF
nat month and fine also for the
continued default I'm the January
and February instruments, making
IN the aggregate $685. and so on
FOR as many months as the default might
continue. From a table which Is printed
aith the petition for the appeal In TINS
Ease. the correctness of which is uhchal-
lenaed. Il appears that according 10 TINS
svstem the total fines for the nrst year
would amount 10 sS5S and II the aeiault
continued 10 tile bidbHAAt'
note payable at seyenty-eignt moh'hs
from the date of the loan, the aggregate
Of fines would be $500
THE OPINION.
TIE court. after citing certain authori-
tics said; I'VE are OF opinion that rely
ING mon the authorities just cited, we
could be warranted in holding that the
proper construction Of the article from
The constitution above quoted limits the
mower of the society TO the imposition OF
one fine for each offence. and does not
sanction its repetition. The construction
of the bylaw is yet more free from
doubt than that Of the constitution ana
upon that we prefer 10 rest our DECISION
The amount borrowed in this case was
$500. A fine OF 20 cents. on each SlOJ
amounts In the aggregate to ST. and the
navment OF a fine Of Sil per month would
therefore seem to satisfy the terms OF the
bylaw above quoted. The articles OF The
association prescribe the limits WITHIN
which the corporation can properly act
The bylaws Indicate the extent 10 when
the corporation has seen fit 10 put into
action the powers which the articles have
conferred and though the charter OF
articles in comforting the power may use
Imperative or mandatory language yet II
n be a benefit. a privilege or advantage
a duty imposed. it may qualify, diminish.
or waive its exercise in whole or In
part. ,
HOW BINDING.
II IS binding upon the association In the
sense that the bylaws may ordain fines
OF less. but may not ordain nnes OF
greater amount than those prescribed by
its charter If, therefore. there were any
repugnancy between the charter ana the
bylaws. II the charter imposed greater
fine than the bylaws, the courts woulo
consider that in the adoption OF the by
law the corporation had found II wise
and expedient to forego the exercise OF a
portion Of the power conferred upon II by
The charter. and deem II a waiver TO that
extent OF IT'S privilege. and would enforce
the fine imposed by the bylaw.
A DOVER CASE.
Hess ct al. VS.. Gale CT al. Opinion
bv Judge Keith. From the Hastings
Court OF the city of Roanoke. Reversed.
Frederick Hess filed petition under sec
ton 2625 Of the Code OF Virginia IN the
Hastings Court for the city OF Roanoke
averrlng that he was the owner or GER
tain real estate which he had contracted
10 sell; that his wife, Mary Hess, was OF
unsound mind and was, therefore, IN
competent 10 unite In conveyance or
said property, and he prayed that
commissioner might be appointed undeI
the section cited 20 report whether she
had "A contingent right OF dover in the
same. II 80, the value thereof, and what
sum should be set apart out Of the pro-
ceeds OF the sale I'M lieu Of such contin-
gent right OF dover, and that special
commissioner might be appointed 10 con-
vey said right. This was done. The
commissioner was appointed. the en-
ouiryi made, the wife's right ascerlained'
and her interest conveyed 10 the pur-
chaser. Thereafter the husband died,
and Mary Hess. the insane wife, filed
her bill by her next friend, claiming
dover and alleging that the proceedings
,inon the petition were as 70 her null
ana void. and IN no way binding upon
her she not having been made party
thereto This bill was demurred to upon
she ground that section 2625 did not con-
fenftate a proceeding interpares, but
was wholly ex-parte. that an insane VIE,
therefore, could not properly be brought
before the court under that proceeding;
that the contingent right OF dover Is not
proper, and that II was within the power
OF the Legislature TO destroy II without
giving the wife an opportunity TO be
heard.
HOLDING OF THE COURT.
The court here holds that without under
taking to follow the argument adduced
"a a. the precise character OF the right
~ the wife in the real estate Of her
husband during his lifetime, known as
the inchoate or contingent right OF dover.
n Is plain that section 26yo does recognize
a right In the wife which must pass from
her to the purchaser in order 10 give
him a full and complete title. The court
u. by the statute. required TO take from
the insane wife right, ana the pro