The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-02-21
live as friends rather than az the enc
mics the Senate OF the United States
seems to think them 10 be.
The FURRY HAS BLOWN OVER.

|
The building and loan furry has blown
| o, er ard people are beginning to get at
| the facts OF that famous Tennessee decl-
| sion. As far as we can gather there was
nothing In that decision 10 have causeu
alarm, and there would have been no
alarm except that certain defunct assoc
Citations in Tennessee tried 10 make 1t
appear that their downfall had been
caused by the courts decision.
We have recently seen a letter from
Chief Justice Snodgrass OF the Ternesses
Supreme Court In which he says that the
decisions OF that court. remote and recent
have been uniformity to the effect that
legally chartered building and loan asso-
Citations which make legal contracts in
heir business were entitled to tho pro-
lection Of the law. That there has been
no change in the law by any construction
OF the court. 1T has occasionally been
our fortune or misfortune" continues
Judge snodgrass, ito find some building
and loan associations that made hlegai
contracts In such cases. we have de-
clared the contracts Illegal, but we nave
n no instance decided any question adj
verse to the legal contracts Of legally
chartered building and loan association.
In this connection we note that case
was recently decided in Baltimore IN
which a borrower brought suit against a
building and loan association Of that city
pleading that tho premium which he
paid was usurious and asking to be re-
leved from its payment, because Of the
fact that the association had not offered
its funds In open competition to tho mem
bers who had an established uniform
rate Of premium at fifty cents per share
per month. The court decided the case
in favor of the association and held that
the Maryland statute did not require that
the money should DO offered to the highest
bidder. Judge stockbridge who sat in
this case said that the Maryland statute
justified the company In establishing a
rate uniform, or otherwise, and tnat
they had a clear right under tho Mary
land authorities to charge premium, the
association being mutual concern and
tho borrowers participating in the profits.
simultaneously with this decision was
rendered a decision by the Court OF APP
peals. at Annapolis on an appeal taken by
the Commercial Building and Loan AS
ISOLATION Of Richmond, Va. against a de-
cision rendered by Judge Harlan, under
which decision Judge Harlan had set
.f In
City. made by the association |
under one of its mortgages involving the |
same question Of fixed premium. The
Court OF Appeals reversed the decision |
Of Judge Harlan and ratified the sale in
question, thus establishing by decision Of |
the highest court the right OF the building |
and loan associations in Maryland 10 |
charge a fixed rate Of premium. If such |
DO in accordance with the bylaws of the |
1t turns out. as has already been stated |
IN this paper. that the Tennessee as
got INTO trouble because OF tho
liberal withdrawal feature. Everything |
went along smoothly so long as the money |
was coming I'm, but when the hard times
,ame and stockholders began to draw
out their funds, the associations reached /
4 point, where they had no money with
which to pay. We are gratihed 70 know
hat none Of the associations in Virginia,
so far as we can learn, has been In any
way embarrassed by the troubles in Ten
lessee