The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1898-03-18
OPINIONS BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
The Year Of the Commonwealth,
June %, l776,
TAX ON NATIONAL BANK STOCKS
The Case OF Burrows Against Smith
Treasurer Afirmcd-Will Con-
strued-Purchase of Dc
liuqucnt Lands.


ed down by the Supreme Court Of APP
peals yesterday:
Ware VS.. Bankers Loan and Invest
ment Company. Reversed. Opinion by
Keith. p.
This case also involves the question OF
usury by a loan company. the company
being a New York corporation. The APP
peliee. under Rule O. asks that errors
against II be corrected in this court The
difference between the sum decreed BY the
Circuit Court and the amount claimed by
appellee is Se22 and that sum is put in
controversy under Rule By the cross
appeal
Held. All the rulings In Crabtree va.
! Old dominion Building and Loan Asso-
| c!ation-supra-are re-asserted and IL the
contract we're q Virglnian contract, as
he.d by the Circuit court, II would be
: usurious. In Buhdlng Association vs..
| Asn"Vlth' 81 Va. tOO, a contract was en-
teEtu mo with corporation organized
uncer the laws OF New ork, as is the
case here. though the loan was made 10
the obiigee. anu its repay ment secured by
a trust upon real estate IN Virginia. Ine
contract was concluded here. and here all
The papers were executed and delivered.
| The bond, however, and all interest,
| monthly premiums and dues were paya-
ble al the ONCE Of the association in New
York. The court held that 1t was a New
lork contract, to be governed by the
laws OF the place Of performance without
regard TO the place where written. sign
ed ana daled, In respect 10 It's nature,
Interpretation, validity and effect ] Dan.
Neg. ms sec. SIS; Andrews vs.. Pond 70
Peters Co. And it was held In Nickels vs.
, Building Association. 90 Va. $50 that a
member OF the association had notice OF
/ It's bylaws. and further that where par
ties enter into a contract lawful I'm New
York and usur.ous in Virginia the pre-
! sumption Is that they contracted with re-
| ference TO the laws OF the state which
| recognized the legality Of the transac-
ton Men are presumed. In their con-
tracts. 10 respect rather than to violate
the law.
While the courts will lie hlndered in
/ their search by no device however in
( genlous, tho proof OF usury must be clear
and satisfactory; II must be proved re-
| yond rational doubt 10 the contrary.
| Brockenbrough VS.. Spindle, II Graft. g.
3. The contract In this case was en-
4 tered into with reference 10 the state OF
! New York as the place Of performance:
! the evidence does not prove that the place
| OF performance was determined upon as
/ a device TO cloak an usuriOus transaction
and under the laws Of New York he ctn-
/ tract was not usurious.
YEAR OF THE COMMONWEALTH"
/ smoot VS.. Peoples Perpetual Loan and
/ Building ASSOCIATION. Affirmed. Opln-
! Ion by Juose heith, president.
! This 100 was a case Of alleged usury
/ by a building and loan association organ
! lied unocr a court charter but afterwards
! also chartered by tha LEGISLATURE. the
, act setting out in the preamble the char
! ter as granted by the court and enacting
/ that said charter shall be las valid TO all
! inlents ana purposes as II originally
| granted by the General Assembly Of Vlr-
| ginia.' Thus the court charter becomes
( not only a legislative charter but also,
by the very terms Of the act, whatever
invalid thing was done under that charter
is validated. As to the power of the
Legislature to grant such a charter under
sec'ion G article I. OF the bill OF rights:
Held: This commonwealth on the 10Th
day Of June, lTi6 adopted a bill OF rights
and constitution and proclaimed herself
a sovereign and independent State, FIVE
days before the birth Of these United
States a circumstance II may be OBJ
served In passing which should fix the
date OF our Independence and be kept in
perpetual memo.y by being embodied In
the writs Of courts and the formal acts
Of the various departments OF our State
government
"Our forefathers were wise and rrac-
teal not political specialists nor dreamy
enthusiasts. They did not strive for an
impossible equality such as has never
existed I'm any society where men have
ceased to he equally savage or equally
wre,ched. They did not seek 70 found
a government theoretically perfect. but
ru'dad Nv the lig't OF evnerience to
found institutions under which their de-
scendants. secure Of life. liberty ana
property mirht remain free. prosperous
and harpy so lorg as they preserved their
V~ecious heritage by the exercise Of
wisdom and virtue. They knew the
wrongs ~ witch they rod heer onpres9od
and the evils which they bad
endured under government OF hereol-
tary rulers and magistrates and II was
to shield themselves and posteriiy from
| their recurrence that the immortal Dill
OF rights was adopted which w.s and Is
and will remain the noolest and most
| comprt hensve declaration OF the rights
| Of man"
For more than a century We have lived
/ under that great charter Of freedom and
CORPORATIONS without number and win
| special privileges have been created and
! bui.d ng associations have made con-
tracts. usurious unless warranted by the
status creating them. Gee White VS..
| Mech B. Association. % Graft 233; B.
| Association VS.. Ashworth 81 Va. io6;
| Nickels VS.. B. Association, 90. Va. $50,
| and many other cases.
| In all this time no such question has
| been raised and the consequences OF
! decision sustaining the con-ention would
| be appalling. II II be ths law II would
! apnly with equal force TO forelfn and
domestic corporations for another State
could not confer a power TO be exercised
| in Virginia which would he denied TO
home corporation In Kentucky such
has been held to be the law In Gordon
| vs. winchester E. and L. Association. u
Push 10 and the doctrine has since that
! Gaze been reafirped by the same court.
! \ different view. however. has been taken
| by other courts. substantially that the
| LEGISLATURE may designate transactions
which are or ere not TO be executions TO
| the influence OF the usury statutes. In n
| Association VS. Robinson Ga Ala. il2. Sc