The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1897-09-15
sur OF
No I]surY 2
The Law and the Building
and Loan Associations.

building and loan associations that
hare been doing business in this
State have been of decided idfuence
an the money markets There are
hardly any towns or cities tha. are
without their building and loan as
sociatioDs. and a great many places.
=in addition TO having several home
enterprises to loan money on the
building and loan plan, have foreign
agencies. For some time past there
has been good deal Of litigation by
those who. when they went TO figure
up, found that they were paying
more than6 ors7 or 8 per cent on
their loans. as they had supposed.
Some Of the companies were charg-
ing as high as 70 per cent and per-
shaps more. but it was not exactly in
the shape of interest, bat was paid
II for expenses and the likes The
Courts have recently held that these
contracts with the building and loan
associations are valid, ,and that
under the regulations of the associa-
tions the companies do no not charge
rsurious interest. 1t will therefore
be prudent for anyone going into
these plans to do their figuring before
making their loans. instead of after
gettiug the property with the bor-
rowed money
a second of the cases recently de-
cided upon this matter, and which
deals more especially with the foreign
building and loan companies, is from
Edgefeld County The Supreme
Court renders q unanimous opinion.
I and presents the entire matter in the
opinion of the Court by Justice Gary
when it says
s.The facts are more particularly
aet ont IN the decree of his Honor.
Judge Bucbanan. from which the
plaintiffs appealed, upon the follow
ing exceptions:
81. Because his Honor erred in
holding that the contracts were to be
performed in South Carolina. and
were South Carolina contracts and
governed by the laws of South Caro-
lima. when he should have found that
the two contracts were governed and
controlled by the laws of the State Of
Georgia
q. Because his Honor erred in
considering and deciding the ques
ton of usnry under the laws of che
State of South Carolina when be
should have considered and decided
said questions under the laws OF the
State of Georgia.
SO. Because his Honor erred in
deciding aud holding that the con-
tracts were usurious
II. Because his Honor erred in
holding that the contracts under the
laws Of Georgia were not usurlous
and no penalty could attach to the
case
SO. Because his Honor erred ii
not allowing the plaintiffs 10 PEI
cent. attorneys fee, when the con
tract distinctly specified that 10 pei
cent. attorneys fees should be allow
ed if the contracts were forced to col
lection by an attorney
sc. Because his Honor erred in
holding that the amounts paid month
" on the shares of the defendant
should be applied to reduce the prin
cipal of the debt
II. Because his Honor erred il
finding that there was due by the de
fendant to the plaintiff on both o
said contracts the total sum of ST.,
031 46
$50. Because his Honor erred ii
not allowing the plaintiff interest or
the amount found due to bin from
the date of fling the decree up te
the date fixed for the sale OF the rea
estate.
1.-The facts in this case are in nc
respect materially different from
those in the case of the Equitable
Building and Loan Association VS.
- II