Premium Fund Association's Appeal

• Decision Date: 06 May 1861
• Citation: 39 Pa. 156
• Parties: Premium Fund Association's Appeal.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

39 Pa. 156

Premium Fund Association's Appeal.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

May 6, 1861.

CERTIORARI to the Orphans' Court of Philadelphia.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Amos Briggs cited the Acts of Assembly relative to building associations, and argued that the contract between the parties was not usurious under the Acts of May 8th 1855, May 8th 1857, and April 12th 1859; that the Act of March 2d 1723 did not apply to this contract, and that, at the time the appellants sought to enforce their claim, there was no law to prevent it.

In answer to the allegation that these Acts of Assembly were unconstitutional, he argued that they did not in any way impair the obligation of contracts, but rather enforced them: citing Evans v. Montgomery, 4 W. & S. 218; Mercer v. Watson, 1 Watts 356; Hepburn v. Curts, 7 Id. 301; Underwood v. Lilly, 10 S. & R. 101; Tate v. Stooltzfoos, 16 Id. 37; Satterlee v. Matthewson, Id. 169; Adle v. Sherwood, 3 Wh. 481; Bolton v. Johns, 5 Barr 145; Taggart v. McGinn, 2 Harris 157; Lycoming v. Union, 3 Id. 166; Schenley v. The Commonwealth, 12 Casey 29; Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 110; Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Bald. 74; Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 44; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Id. 420; Baugher v. Nelson, 9 Gill (Maryland) 299; Anderson v. Russell, 7 Blackf. 477; Wilson v. Hardesty, 1 Maryland Ch. Decis. 66; Fowler v. Throckmorton, Blackf. 326; Satterlee v. Matthewson, 13 S. & R. 133.

Hopper, for appellee, cited and printed as his argument the opinion of his honour Judge Smyser, president of the Common Pleas of Montgomery county, in the case of the Marble Building Association against G. W. Hocker, published in the Legal Intelligencer, November 11th 1859.

The opinion of the court was delivered, May 6th 1861, by LOWRIE, C. J.

Our decision in the case of Reiser v. The William Tell Savings Association, just pronounced, requires us to affirm this decree. When this contract was made, the law of it was, that "when a rate of interest for the loan or use of money, exceeding that established by law, shall have been reserved or contracted for, the borrower or debtor shall not be required to pay to the creditor the excess over the legal rate." Such is the Act of 28th May 1858, and such has been our law for more than a century. Such is yet the law for all the people of the Commonwealth, except for such as may choose to unite to the number of ten or more into an association called a saving fund, loan, land, or building, and then ...