The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-21
II THE SUPREME COURT
a Decision In the Building and
Loan Case.
THE HOME COMPANY WINS
Not Obliged to Come Under the Law
OF 1897 Unless the Company So
Desires-One Case From Sill
YER Bow County.

Special Dispatch to the Standard.
Helena. June 20.-In addition to the
Butte, Anaconda & Pacific railroad de-
cision and of almost equal importance
was the decision of the court in the
application OF the Home, Building &
Loan association of this city for a writ
OF prohibition to restrain Attorney Gen.
eral Nolan from carrying out his de-
clared intention of instituting proceed
ings for the purpose Of d~issolving the
corporation for alleged noncompliance
with h laws of the state. Every
building and loan association will be
Interested in the decision, especially
those incorporated before the law
passed by the last Legislature went into
effect.
The question presented to the court
was whether or not a building and loan
association organized prior to 1897
would ave to conform to the laws
passed by the legislature in that year
relative to building and loan associa-
lions, or whether they could go on
doing business under the laws under
which they had been. organized. 1t is
decided that they need not come un-
del the laws Of 1897 unless they so
choose.
Justice Pigott prepared the opinion.
In which his associates concur. The
court the question whether
II was intended by the act of March 4.
1897, to Internationally repeal sections
40 to S45 of the civil code, making the
act of 1897 the only law as applied to
building and loan associations. After
discussing the question Of dhe priority
OF statutes, the court says:
THE question whether a repeal of a
prior statute absolute and unqualified
In terms, can for any reason be limited
In its operation, has frequently arisen,
and the courts have uniformly held
that wherever the language of the re-
peal appears to have been used or in
tended in a limited sense. effect must
be given to such intent as in the inter-
probation of the statutes"
Continuing, the court says: I'VE are
all of the opinion that the intention of
the legislature was to limit the effect
of the act of 1897 to corporations there
tofore created which elect to assume
h burdens imposed and to exercise
the privileges granted by it, and to for
eign corporations. Intent of the legis-
lature must ordinarily be sought in the
language of the act by which it's will
was voiced. Examination of the whole
act in question discloses no uncertain
ty or ambiguity. Provision is made for
the Incorporation after June 1, 1897
(when the act too effect, of corpora
tions of the nature of plaintiff. Per-
mission is given by section 2 for
building and LOAF associations organ
fzed before that time to come under
and wall themselves of its provisions
by vote of the shareholders. but no
command is laid upon them-the privi-
lege of becoming Incorporated under
apd being governed and regulated by
the act may be exercised or not, at
pleasure. By section IL recognition is
made of the fact that building and loan
associations Heretofore Incorporated
in Montana may thereafter continue to
exist and lawfully transact business
without being governed by or becoming
amenable to the act. Unles it elects to
take advantage of the permission given
by section 2, a domestic association,
organized prior to June 1, 1897, shall
not in any way except as to taxation
be affected by the act.
such a corporation as the plaintiff is
excluded from the operation of the act.
The provision quoted is broad and COM
prehensive. Except as to taxation the act
shall not affect the class of corporations
TO which the plaintiff belongs. CThe word
affect is used in the sense of operate or
act on or concern J"
After dealing with other contentious
of the attorney general the court con-
cludes by denying the motion to quash the
application for the writ, and the defend
ant refusing to further plead, orders that
the writ of prohibition be issued forth
with.
Two other opinions were rendered. one
on an appeal from the district court of
Silver Bow and one from the district
court OF Flathead count
w. II Johnson VS.. John III. Curtis ct al.
This was an action to foreclose a me-
chanics' lien, commenced before Judge
Lindsay, district court of Silver Bow
county. The controversy arose out of the
furnishing of some art glass for a build