Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-03-18
MANYCASES DECIDED
MoRE THAN A DOZEN OPINIONS IN
THE SUPREME COURT.
TAX ON NATIONAL BANK STOCK.
A Debtor Not Enuued 10 Deduct His
Indcbtedness-Lowcr Court Re-
versed In one Usury Case and AZ
armcd In Auother-othcr Matters.

There were over a dozen cases decided
In the Supreme Court OF Appeals yes.
terday. The opinions handed down cover
a wide range OF subjects and several Of
them are OF very general Interest. The
following are brief abstracts Of them;
PLACE OF CONTRACT.
Ware vs.. Bankers Loan and Investment
Company. Reversed. opinion by
Keith, T..
This case involves the question OF
usury by a loan company, the company
being a New York corporation. The APP
pelloo, under Rule 3 asks that errors
against II be corrected I'm this court.
The difference between the sum dccreed
by the Circuit Court and the amount
claimed bv appellee is 1922. and that sum
IS pat in controversy under Rule 3 by inc
cross appeal.
Held. All the rulings in Crabtree VS..
old Dominion Building and Loan Asso-
citation. supra. are reasserted, and II the
contract were a Virginian contract. as
held by the Circuit Court, IL would be
usurious. In Building Association vs..
Ashworth. 81 Virginia, zoo. a contract
was entered into with a corporation or
eanized under the laws OF New YORK, as
Is the case here. though the loan was
mace 10 the obllkfNs anu 10 ANi'' 49,
secured by a trust upon real estate IN
Virginia. The contract was concluded
here. and here all the papers were exc
cutcd and delivered. The bond, how
ever. and all interest. monthly pre-
miums. and dues were payable at the
office OF the association I'm New YORK.
The court held that il was a New YORK
contract. TO be governed by the laws OF
the place Of performance without regard
TO the place where written, signed, and
dated. in respect 10 its nature, interpre-
tation, validity. and effect. ! Dan. Neg.
ms, section S65: Andrews vs.. Pond. Is
Peters. G5. And IL was held in Nickels VS..
Building Association. % Va, $50. that a
member Of the association had notice of
its bylaws; and, further, that where
parties enter into q contract lawful in
New York and usurious in Virginia the
presumption is that they contracted with
reference TO the laws Of the State which
recognized the legality Of the transac-
zion. Men are presumed, in their con-
tracts. to respect rather than to violate
the law.
. While the courts will be hindered in
their search by no device, however inju-
rlous. the proof Of usury must be clear
and satisfactory-it must be proved be-
yond a rational doubt to the contrary.
NNAE N'H hAAA"tA" - 90 Sa
3. The contract in this case was en-
tered into with reference to the State of
York as the place Of performance;
he evidence does not prove that the
JldCe of performance was determined
lpon as a device TO cloak an u]suriOus
transaction, and under the laws Of New :
FORK the contract was not usurious.
THE YEAR OF THE COMMON !
WEALTH" 4
Smoot VS.. Peoples Perpetual Loan and {
Building Association. Affirmed. Opin-
ion by Keith, T.. Q
This, too, was a case Of alleged usury I
~ a building and loan association or '
,8nizcd under a court charter, but after {
Yards also chartered by the Legislature c
he act setting out in the preamble the I
harter as granted by the court. and
nacting that said charter shall be "as {
aid to all intents n purposes as if
granted by the General Assem-
ly of Virginia. Thus the court char
,r becomes not only a legislative char b
but also, by the very terms of the G
whatever invalid thing was done Il
nder that charter is validated. As TO n
he power of the Legislature to grant iC
UGH a charter under section 6, Article b
Of the Bill Of Rights (;
Held: This Commonwealth on the - h
ay Of June, l716, adopted a Bill Of Rights L
nd Constitution, and proclaimed her q
elf a sovereign and independent State, 81
We days before the birth of these United W
tates; a circumstance. it may be OBJ d.
erved in passing, which should fix the Il
ate OF our independence and be kept m
perpetual memory by being embodied III
! the writs OF courts and the formal IN
cts Of the various departments Of our el
Government" II
our fOrefathers were wise and practi- 81
not political specialists nor dreamy IT
Enthusiasts. They did not strive for an ie
npossible equality, such as has never d
listed in any society, where men have
sased to be equally savage or equally Do
retched. They did not seek 10 found n
government theoretically perfect; but, oil
aided by the light of experience, to III
'und institutions under which their de- Ju
'endants, secure of life, liberty, and d,
might remain free. PROSPEROUS, 81
nd happy as long as they preserved 40
precious heritage by the exercise ~,
wisdom and virtue. They knew the %
rongs by which they had been oppressed .
I'd the evils which they had endured nvy
ider a government of hereditary rulers 90
ld magistrates, and Il was to shield 49,
and posterity from their re- sr
.rrence that the immortal Bill Of Rights Ga,
as adopted, which was and is and will On,
main the noblest and most compre- 10,
nsiye declaration of the rights of ga
IN. ~
more than a century We have IN.
ed under that great charter of free cit
m, and corporations without number tr,
d with special privileges have been sa
Gated, and building associations have We
contracts usurious unless warrant an
by the statutes creating them. See ev
hite VS.. Mech, Il. Association, p Graft. Ri
; i. Association VS.. Ashworth, o. Va, WI
; Nickcls VS.. 3. Association. SO Va. TIA
and many other cases. In all this Rr
ne no such question has been raised. :
the consequences of a decision SIS y
ming the contention would be appal- Inc
3. il IT be the law. ii would apply ne,
n equal force 10 the foreign and do ,a,
site corporations, for another State &C.
I'D not confer a power TO be exercised Il
Virginia which would be denied TO n -,
ne corporation. In Kentucky. such 80
been held to be the law, in Gordon 80
Winchester, b. and L. Association. pc
10, ana the doctrine has since oW
Z case been reafilrmed by the same a.
NJ, A different view. however. has -
n taken by other courts, substantially tlol
I the Legislature may desig1ato ga
which are or are not ia he us
.epuons TO the influence Of the usurv Ddi
tutes. Loan Association VS.. Robin not
, ~ Ala. Az. See, also. Williams VS.. nd'
nHiacK' - Miss, 2)9; Bib County As .aA
iation vs.. Richards, q Ga, 592. mes
me act incorporating the associa- IN
J Is constitutional. 1t sufices to re- VIZ
90 AHNH - min