Interstate Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Holland

Citation43 S.E. 978,65 S.c. 448
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decision Date25 March 1903
PartiesINTERSTATE BUILDING & LOAN ASS'N. v. HOLLAND et al.

building association—rights OP borROWING MEMBER.

1. Where a member of a building association borrows money from it, pledging his stock to secure the loan, the relation of debtor and creditor is created.

2. A borrower of a building association should not have credited on his loan such sums as were paid by way of admission fees, stock dues, and fines.

3. A borrower from a building loan company should have credit on his loan for the withdrawal value of his stock at the time of the loan, and for payments thereafter made of stock dues, interest, and premiums, to be credited as of the time of payment, with interest.

4. No deductions from payments made by a borrowing member of stock dues, interest, or premiums should he allowed under any by-law providing that a certain amount per share should be set aside monthly for expenses, as the borrower, having become a debtor of the association, has ceased to be a member thereof.

5. A borrowing member of a building association is not chargeable with any losses of the association, nor entitled to any share in its profits.

6. A borrower of a building association is liable for the sum loaned, with such interest as may lawfully be collected under the contract.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Edgefield County; Benet, Judge.

Action by the Interstate Building & Loan Association against J. A. and A. P. Holland. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

Sheppard Bros., for appellant.

N. G. Evans, for respondents.

JONES, J. This is an action to foreclose a real estate mortgage given by defendants Holland to the plaintiff association to secure his bond to the association for $2,000, money borrowed, which was also secured by an assignment or pledge of 40 shares of the capital stock of said association held by the borower. The defendant pleaded payment usury, and counterclaim. The trial resulted in the following decree of the circuit court, sustaining only the plea of payment: "The above-stated action for the foreclosure of the mortgage set out in the plaintiff's complaint came on for a hearing before me at the spring term of this court for Edgefield county, in March, 1900, upon the pleadings and evidence taken by the master of said county, and reported under an order for that purpose. From this evidence I find the following facts: That on the 28th day of July, 1892, J. A. Holland borrowed from the plaintiff association the sum of $2,-000. That, as security for this loan, he assigned to the said plaintiff forty shares of the capital stock of the said association, and that on the 28th day of July, 1892, he gave to the plaintiff the bond and mortgage set out in said complaint, conditioned to pay the plaintiff, on the third Wednesday in each month thereafter, the sum of $24 as a monthly installment on said shares of stock, and shall continue to make such monthly payments for and until such time as each share of the stock borrowed on shall mature, and the sum of $10 at the same time as interest on said loan. That said bond further provides that 'it is understood that, upon final settlement with the association, it shall retain no greater sum than the amount actually advanced, with interest thereon at the rate of eight per cent. per annum.' That defendant James A. Hoi-land paid all the installments, interest, and fines called for by said mortgage and the bylaws and rules of said association, on said stock, up to the 1st day of April, 1897, when he defaulted and ceased to make any further payment. The amount so paid by him on his forty shares of stock was as follows:

                ------------------------------------------------------------
                |Sixty-six installments, of $24 each.            |$1,584 00|
                |------------------------------------------------|---------|
                |Fifty-four installments of interest, of $10 each|540 00   |
                |------------------------------------------------|---------|
                |Fines on forty shares                           |124 00   |
                |------------------------------------------------|---------|
                |Total                                           |$2,248 00|
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                

"I find from the evidence of the president of said association that the defendant's share of the profits on each share of said stock at about the time of said default was $14.13.and the total profit on said forty shares Is therefore $565.20. The plaintiff must account to said defendant for these profits. Adding these profits to the said sum of $2,248 so paid by said defendant to the said plaintiff, the total amount which he has paid said plaintiff is the sum of $2,813.20. The amount due on said bond and mortgage, with interest at eight per cent, per annum from July 28, 1892, to April 1, 1897, the date of default, is as follows:

                --------------------------------------------------------------
                |Principal                                         |$2,000 00|
                |--------------------------------------------------|---------|
                |Interest, four years, eight months, and three days|747 99   |
                |--------------------------------------------------|---------|
                |Total                                             |$2,747 99|
                --------------------------------------------------------------
                

"The defendant J. A. Holland has therefore overpaid the plaintiff $65.21, and is due nothing on said bond and mortgage, and the complaint is therefore dismissed, with costs."

To this decree appellant excepts, as follows:

"First. Because the circuit judge erred In finding and holding that the defendant had overpaid the plaintiff in the sum of $65.21, and therefore that the defendants are due nothing on said bond and mortgage mentioned in the complaint.

"Second. Because the circuit judge erred in finding and holding that the defendants were entitled to credit for sixty-six installments, of $24 each, whereas, if the defendants were entitled to credit at all on account of said installments, they were only entitled to credit for sixty-four installments.

"Third. Because the circuit judge erred in allowing the defendants credit for the sum of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Fidelity Savings Association v. Bank of Commerce
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 18, 1904
    ...... and loan association, in which the defendant filed a. ... of interstate law and comity. ( Bennett v. Eastern B. & L. Assn., 177 ...220;. Ewing v. Savings Assn., 43 O. St., 31; Bldg. Assn. v. Mayers, 25 S. W., 1132; Stevens v. Assn., 51 ... profits." ( Interstate B. & L. Assn. v. Holland et. al. (S. C.), 65 S.C. 448, 43 S.E. 978.). . . ......
  • D.C.N Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Rice
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • March 18, 1904
    ...another contract, making them liable for the amount they received, and interest on it at the South Carolina rate. In Association v. Holland, 65 S. C. 448, 43 S. E. 978, upon which defendants rely, it does not appear that the contract was made with reference to the laws of another state. In ......
  • Yorkville Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Foster
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • August 12, 1925
    ......The case of Interstate Building and Loan Association v. Holland, 65 S. C. 448, 43 S. E. 978, lays down the rules which ......
  • Equitable Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Corley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • October 7, 1905
    ...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 com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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