Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-03-22
ROLAPP REVERSED.
Supreme Court Decision In a Build.
Ing Society Case.
CONTRACT WAS UNCoNsCIONABLE.
A Batch Of Prisoners Brought Before
judge Norrell-Court
Notes.

opinion today In the case OF John II.
Sawtelle VS. the North American
Loan and Building company, revers.
aud remanding 1t back with instruc-
tions to modify the findings and to
dispose of 1t ia accordance with the
opinion.
Tho defendant corporation ia organ
izad under the laws OF Minnesota, land
for some time past has been doing bus.
iness in this state.
Charles J. Humphrlcs, residing at
Ogden, subscribed for seventeen shares
stock in December, 1891, receiving =
certificate therefor the following
April. According to contract, AMI to
be in harmony with the bylaws Of
the association, HUMPHREYS was to
pay sixty cents dues monthly on each
matchmaking q total OF sl0.2O-until
the payments, tog ether with the
profits, arising from interests on loans.
premiums, etc., would amount to 800
share, or in the aggregate 81, 700.
Humph.ieH procured Joan VI 1850
ON these shares from the corporation,
giving as security bia promissory note
aud mortgage upon certain real
property. In addition to this no trans
ferret TO the company 81 ahsres OF
his stock Gs premium Tor the loan
and Us further security assigned the
other So shares "a collateral security.
BY the contract he wac 20 pay an
interest at the rate OF six per cent per
| annum on the borrowed money, and
TO also continue paying his dues and
| Interest until the stock mAtured and
was worth 500 per share, after which
| 1t was to be received by the building
| society IN satisfaction OF the loan.
Some time later HUMPHREYS sold the
mortgaged property 10 Sawtelle, who
assumed all the Indebtedness, agreeing
to pay the same off in accordance with
| Humphries' contest.
When Sawtelle bought the property
he claims to have no knowledge OF tho
effect OF the provisions OF the mort
gage, and was not aware that tho
stock had been absolutely assigned
Ov1r to the company. He continued
paying the interest and dues until
time when the dues paid amou ntsd to
1857. 20. he then notified the COM
\ saDy tbatEe intended ito psy of tho
loan, at the same time claiming the
right TO apply the amount paid In dues
to the mortgage Indebtedness. He
rendered $500 as the balance due. the
corporation refused to accept this,
for the reason that only one half OF
the cues could be applied, because
OF Humphries assigning half OF the
stock. SawtelIe thea Instituted
proceedings to compel 1t to cancel the
mortgage, pleading the tender OF the
$500, when he deposited with the
clerR OF the Second district court.
The defendant filed an answer and q
| cross complaint, asking that IL be- al.
lowed to iOTeclose the mortgage. The
matter was heard before Judge Rolapp,
who dismissed the plaintiffs cause OF
action, giving judgment for defendant
In the cum OF S62670, from which
plaintiff appealed.
There are number of errors as
signed in the appeal, the principal one
being on the application OF the pay
monts on the stock procured by
Humphrlss.. The court holds that the
SsG7. 20 paid as dues must be applied
IN reduction OF the debt.
Referring 10 the contract made be.
tween the corporation and Humphrles,
the court says:
"Ihis kind OF contract for the
com mend itself TO the special favor OF
u court OF equity, and while it 10 rot
necessary, anu Is not our inten.io to
Dass upon its validity in this case,
under tho laws OF this State, as be.
tween a mem Der and the CORPORATION.
slill 1t 10 important TO notice tho
results which would flow from a
specific performance OF 1t, to see
whether Ito literal enforcement against
one who IL not member OF the
corporation, and at time
when he undertook to pay the
loan, had NO knowledge OF the
effect OF Its provisions, would
be JuEtihed upon any question OF
equity. lls complete performance
would require. and such appears to the
contention OF the corporation, the
payment OF $40 20 dues and S4.25 in
letsst per month, with such fines aud
penalties as might be assessed, for q
period OF nine ysars, or until the seven
teen sbares OF stock became worth
Sl,700, or. in ether words, tho borrower
Is to repay the $3.50 loaned, with 0 per
cent interest, pas aoie monthly, and an
addition thereto, give the corporation a
bonus OF $500, or IN the aggregate
81, l59, aud then the corporation will
call the business squsre and the trAns-
acliOn at an end.
"The mere statement OF tuch prop
ostlon shows ths contract to be
h I'd oue, II not entirely unconsclonable
anu therefore We have no hosltancy
In declaring That, under the facts OF
this case, as they appear from the
record, the s367.2O paiu as dues on the
stock must be- applied In reduction OF
the debt.
"Having reached this conclusion,
We 40 not deem 1t necessary to con-
slider the cross appeal, nor is it import
ant to discuss any other questions
raised in the record"
Toe question whether tho contract
Humphgies entered into, although
valid under the laws OF Minnesota,
could be enforced under the laws of
cur State, as between q member and
the corporation, was not decided.
sEYEN IN ALL