Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Corley

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtWOODS
Citation52 S.E. 48,72 S.C. 404
Decision Date07 October 1905
PartiesEQUITABLE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N. v. CORLEY et al.

52 S.E. 48
72 S.C. 404

EQUITABLE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N.
v.
CORLEY et al.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Oct. 7, 1905.


1. Building and Loan Associations—Loan —Construction.

Where money is advanced to a member of a foreign building association, and the bond executed provides that the obligation is a Georgia contract, governed by the laws of Georgia, it will be construed, as to applications of payments, in accordance with such laws.

2. Vendor and Purchaser — Conditions — Notice.

Where the mortgage securing a bond refers to the bond for conditions, and the bond is not recorded, it is not notice to a purchaser of the land of any other conditions than those appearing on the record of the mortgage.

3. Same—Bona Fide Purchaser.

Evidence held to show that a purchaser of land covered by a mortgage had notice of the conditions of the mortgage, though such conditions appeared only in the bond, which was not recorded.

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, 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 pre miums 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, 30 S. E. 911, and Burns v. Equitable Building & Loan Association, 33 S. E. 856. If the Georgia statute governs the contract, it is obvious from its terms, as construed by the Supreme Court of Georgia, that there was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • D.C. Weighing Mach. Co v. Rhem, No. 13304.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 15 Diciembre 1931
    ...Building & Loan Association v. Rice et al., 68 S. C. 236, 47 S. E. 63, 1 Ann. Cas. 239; Equitable Building & Loan Association v. Corley, 72 S. C. 404, 52 S. E. 48, 110 Am. St. Rep. 615; Equitable Building & Loan Association v. Vance, 49 S. C. 402, 27 S. E. 274, 29 S. E. 204; Equitable Build......
  • City Nat. Bank of Duncan v. Soderberg, Case Number: 21077
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 14 Enero 1935
    ...of Minnesota in the case of Thompson v. Lapsley et al., 96 N.W. Rev. 788; Equitable Building & Loan Association v. Corley et al. (S.C.) 52 S.E. 48; Hawkes v. Hoffman et ux. (Wash.) 105 P. 156; Dickey v. Henarie, 15 Ore. 351; Fire Assoc. v. Flournoy, 84 Tex. 632, 31 Am. St. Rep. 89; Wynne v.......
  • Johnson City v. Milligan Utility Dist.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • 1 Julio 1954
    ...charge the purchaser with notice of those facts alone which they import. Annotation, 7 L.R.A. 841; Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Corley, 72 S.C. 404, 52 S.E. 48, 110 Am.St.Rep. 615; 55 Am.Jur. 1084, Vendor and Purchaser, Sec. 709; 29 Am.Jur. 241. Uncertainties and ambiguities in the langu......
  • Roche v. Day, 201
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 23 Febrero 1920
    ...and could not affect Roche's title. 5. The deposition of Trotter should have been quashed. 39 Cyc. 1738; 189 Pa.St. 164; 69 Am. St. 794; 72 S.C. 404; 52 S.E. 48; 88 Ala. 527, cited in 2 Pom. on Eq. Jur. (2 Ed.) 601; 108 Ark. 190. The deposition of Trotter was not signed by him as provided b......
4 cases
  • D.C. Weighing Mach. Co v. Rhem, No. 13304.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 15 Diciembre 1931
    ...Building & Loan Association v. Rice et al., 68 S. C. 236, 47 S. E. 63, 1 Ann. Cas. 239; Equitable Building & Loan Association v. Corley, 72 S. C. 404, 52 S. E. 48, 110 Am. St. Rep. 615; Equitable Building & Loan Association v. Vance, 49 S. C. 402, 27 S. E. 274, 29 S. E. 204; Equitable Build......
  • City Nat. Bank of Duncan v. Soderberg, Case Number: 21077
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oklahoma
    • 14 Enero 1935
    ...of Minnesota in the case of Thompson v. Lapsley et al., 96 N.W. Rev. 788; Equitable Building & Loan Association v. Corley et al. (S.C.) 52 S.E. 48; Hawkes v. Hoffman et ux. (Wash.) 105 P. 156; Dickey v. Henarie, 15 Ore. 351; Fire Assoc. v. Flournoy, 84 Tex. 632, 31 Am. St. Rep. 89; Wynne v.......
  • Johnson City v. Milligan Utility Dist.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Tennessee
    • 1 Julio 1954
    ...charge the purchaser with notice of those facts alone which they import. Annotation, 7 L.R.A. 841; Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Corley, 72 S.C. 404, 52 S.E. 48, 110 Am.St.Rep. 615; 55 Am.Jur. 1084, Vendor and Purchaser, Sec. 709; 29 Am.Jur. 241. Uncertainties and ambiguities in the langu......
  • Roche v. Day, 201
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 23 Febrero 1920
    ...and could not affect Roche's title. 5. The deposition of Trotter should have been quashed. 39 Cyc. 1738; 189 Pa.St. 164; 69 Am. St. 794; 72 S.C. 404; 52 S.E. 48; 88 Ala. 527, cited in 2 Pom. on Eq. Jur. (2 Ed.) 601; 108 Ark. 190. The deposition of Trotter was not signed by him as provided b......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT