The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-01-25
FOUR OPINIONS
ARE HANDED DOWN
This Number of Decisions in the
Supreme Court.
SAUNDERS CASE RENAMED.
Henrico Building Fund Case Sent
Back to the Circuit Cuurt-Rishts
Of Judgment Creditors = Cues
ton OF Contributo1y Negligence

The budget of opinions delivered yester-
day by the Supreme Court was ia Their
small, compared with other opinion days.
but the list contains interesting decisions
on several questions of muc11l Importance
10 the legal profession as well the
public geneE ally.
The most important case, locally as we'll
as otherwise decided yesterday is that of
Saunders vs. Baltimore Building and Loan
Association, appealed from the Circuit
Court or Henrico county, and presents
some Interesting questions as to contracts
with such associations and the proper
practice in setting up the plea of usury
Tue opinion in the case of Miller vs.
ByerS, from the Circuit Court of Lam
caster county, clearly presents the right
OF a judgment creditor to elect the method
OF procedure to collect his debt
John EchOls executor VS.. Joseph Bren-
nan ct ais. from the Circuit Court of
Augusta county, relates to the five-year
rule as to the dismissal of suits.
McDaniel's' administrator VS.. lIynchburs
Cotton Mill Co. from the Circuit Court
of Campbell county, is another case for
damages in which the doctrine of con-
tributory negligence bars the right Of re-
covery.
Building and Loan Contracts.
Saunders VS.. Baltimore Building and Loan
Association. From the Circuit Court OF
Henrico county. Opinion by Judge Card
Well
On March II. 1898, Geo. w. Saunders be-
came a member of the defendant associ-
alton a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of Maryland subscribed
to twenty-five shares of stock, Of the par
value OF 500 a share, and made applica-
ton for an advance or loan to him of the
full amount of the par value Of his stock.
s., 500, and offered to pay a. premium of
80 cents month on each share, and to
secure the loan, etc, by deed Of trust on
certain real estate in Henrco county.
Upon the approval of the application,
Saunders and his WIFE, on April I. 1893,
executed to NJ. L. Spottswood, trustee. a
deed of trust to secure the association
the payment of said loan, etc, until the
stock matured, when it was understood
the deed would be released.
The trustee, upon default of .payment of
the premium, etc, advertised the property
for snle on April 30, 1899, whereupop Saun-
ders obtained an injunction to restrain
sale, setting out in his bill the facts above
stated, and averring that the debt was
subject to certain credits, etc, and thHt
the contract was usurious. 1t was further
averred that, on the eth OF September. 1887,
complainant conveyed the trust to Jas. T.
Saunders ct al. for $500, and the further
consideration that the grantees should
assume the incumbrance which included
the debt due the association, and on the
same day Saunders ct al. conveyed the
said real estate TO Coalter and Wise. trus-
tees, to secure the purchase money and
interest represented by the twenty-nine
notes. The association and SpottSWood
trustee, filed a demurrer and answer 10
this bill.
The Circuit Court ovcrruled the de-
murrer and decreed that unless Jas. T.
Saunders ct al. should deposit in the Sc
curity Bank of Richmond TO the credit
of the court in this case on or before
March l. 1899. the sum of sl,Sli.0. with
interest (being the debt due the assoc!-
ntion). then SpottsWood. trustee, should
proceed to sell enough of the property to
satisfy the debt of the association. having
first laid off the property into metes and
bounds and advertised same
From this decree appeal was taken. and
several errors assigned by appellant, but
the court only considered the appellee's
assignment of error, which was made I'M
der Rule IN, as to action OF lower court
in overruling the demurrer to appellants
bill
The Court of Appeals says: The SraEa-
men of the bill is the alleged uslry in the
contract, and the relief sought. If OBJ
tanned, could alone, upon his bill. enure
to the benefit of his grantees. JOS T.
Saunders ct al, who would not be en-
titled to it, as they assumed, to pay ap-
pellee's debt. Appellee's money was lett
in their hands by appellant and they are
bound to pay it over to the creditors.
Were appellee seeking to collect OF ap-
pellant the money due on the ccl'tract
alleged to be usurious, he could clearly do
SO under section 2S2e Of Code; but this
is not this this case. as appellee was only
seeking to enforce its deed of rust upon
the land. the title to which appellant had
conveyed to other parties. 70 whom he
left the payment OF his debt due to ap-
pellee."
The demurrer. it was held. should have
been sustained, but with leave to the
plaintiff appellant here) to amend, II ne
SO desired. and the decree appealed from
will be SO amended, and as amended
affirmed, witt costs to appellee.
ELECTION of remedies.
Miller VS.. Byers. From Circuit Court OF
Lancaster county. Opinion by Judge
Harrison
In the year 1900 Martha A. Byers died,
leaving will, giving to the appellee, her
h, o,,5S "a I,e tl1oh =coNyeved to-