52 S.E. 48 (S.C. 1905), Equitable Building & Loan Ass'n v. Corley

Citation:52 S.E. 48, 72 S.C. 404
Opinion Judge:WOODS, J.
Attorney:Efird & Dreher, for appellants. R. W. Shand, for respondent.
Case Date:October 07, 1905
Court:Supreme Court of South Carolina

Page 48

52 S.E. 48 (S.C. 1905)

72 S.C. 404



CORLEY et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

October 7, 1905

         Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Lexington County; Watts, Judge.

         Action by the Equitable Building & Loan Association against P. H. Corley and the Roof & Barre Lumber Co. From circuit decree, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

         Efird & Dreher, for appellants. R. W. Shand, for respondent.

         WOODS, J.

         The Equitable Building & Loan Association, a corporation having its principal place of business in Augusta, Ga., brings this action to foreclose a mortgage on land in Lexington county, S. C., executed by the defendant Corley, a resident of South Carolina. The land was afterwards conveyed by Corley to Roof & Barre, and by them to the defendant Roof & Barre Lumber Company. The answer sets up the plea of payment. The first question arising under this plea is whether all sums paid to the Equitable Building & Loan Association by Corley and his grantees, after Corley made the mortgage and borrowed the money, should be credited on the sum borrowed and interest, [72 S.C. 406] or should be applied not only to that, but also to the expenses of the association and premiums, as provided by the bond.

         We first consider this question as it effects the rights of Corley, the original mortgagee. If the contract is governed by the law of this state, as defendants contend, the former method of computation would be correct, and the bond and mortgage would be overpaid. Association v. Holland, 65 S.C. 448, 43 S.E. 978. The circuit judge, however, held the contract fell under the law of Georgia, and that by that law the bond was to be computed according to its terms, which included, not only the sum actually borrowed, with interest, but the expenses and premiums for which Corley was liable as a borrowing member of the association. The following is the statute of Georgia under which the computation in the circuit decree was made: "Be it further enacted, that no fines, interest or premiums paid on loans in any building and loan association shall be deemed usurious, and the same may be collected as debts of like amount are now collected by the law in this state, and according to the terms and stipulations of the agreement between the association and the borrower." Laws Ga. 1890-91, vol. 1, p. 181, § 8. This statute was construed by the Supreme Court of Georgia, in Cook v. Equitable Building & Loan Association,...

To continue reading