The Roanoke daily times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1895-1897, 1896-05-15
4. w SYKES

GA. STATE BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.
There is not sufficient evidence In this case 20
convince me that II was ever contemplated be-
tween the parties that this contract should be
performed In Virginia
The plsiutin here mas expressly contracted that
II should be performed in the State of Georgia,
although this Company had its local treasurer.
This is one OF the cases In which think the
simple existence OF a local treasurer is not euf
acient to show that the parties contemplated the
performance OF the contract in manner diner
cut from the cxpr.ss provision of the contract
itscif
Section OF the bylaws. in reference to the
local treas ircr, IL M follows: Members may, IL
they so desire. make monthy payments on stock
shall be deemeddhs agent OF the members. and
not OF the assvcfzton."
This seems u be what the parties agreed
upon, and there Is no evidence satisfactory to
my mind, showing that they ever contemplated
doing otherwise. 1t may be remarked in passing
that IN the by law above quoted, pefmission was
given the mem beers to make monthly payments
on their stocz to the local treasurer. Payments
on stock are nothing out the assessment on the
stock. This could be paid to the local treasurer
at their rick. The company does not thereby
necessarily give consent that the borrowers OF
money couli make payments OF their premium,
interest and nues 10 the local treasurer.
In IN. argument of this case counsel for tn
plainii1 ted vcrsl decisions from the State OF
taken as seenrity for the payment OF debt, the
state In watch this recurity WAS taken was the
place OF performance OF the contrac land this was
contract to the cJntrary.
Therefore IL wa. aigued II this be o Georgia
contract, aud to be enforced according to the
laws OF Georgia, the Georgia courts. so room it
discovered that Virginia real estate had been
taken as security the debt, would cay that the
Virginia law In reference to usury was appIlca.
Bile. None OF these decisions were csses involv.
ing building ana loan associations; and however
the.e decisions might apply to other caees, Ia
1891 the Legislature OF Georgia passed an act to
regulate building aud loan associations thereto
fore OR thereafter Incorporated under the lave
or Georgia which 90 business outside OF thar
state n aaan M Of
other States doing business in the state OF
Georgia. In sectien OF that ac.is the following
provision
abe it further eoacted that no Hnes interest or
premium paid on loans In any building and loan
association shat 'e deemed usurious, and the
came may be 81 ec,ed as debte OF like amount
are now collected b. law In this State. and &C
cording to the terms and stipustions OF the
agreement between the association and the Dor
rover"
at the time The contract in question was en-
tered into this law WAS In force, and whatever
enactment, or whsteve. may be the law OF Geor-
gia with regard TO other persons, whether
natural or artificial. 1t seems to me the fort going
act OF the Georgia Legislature clearly intended
that the plea OF usury should, under no circum-
stances be set mp against building and loan asso-
In the foregoing section it will be noticed that
the Legislature saiG: mo fines, interest," or prem.
ium psid on loans" etc. Stress was laid. in ar.
taken by the learned counsel Tor the pleintir is
thai the Legislature only intended TO cut the
parties out OF the night OF action to recover back
nsurious interest aresdy paid, aed that the pro.
visions OF the bet did not ex end to ex.cntory
contracts to pay what would otherwise be usur-
ious
do not think this position is tensble, bscaCse
in the borrowing line OF the same zee ION OF the
ac:, is found the following language
The same may he col ecte5 as debss OF like
amount are Bow collected by lew In this State"
That esrtaihly was no. lepSad TO be appiica.
bic 10 deats already collected, bSt 10 he ayDica.
bic to contracts which had not as yet be en- com.
piled With.
Upon the Thole. do NOT thirk tie ples OF
nsury CO. ne sGs.aipcf 10 his cs..