18 S.D. 600 | S.D. | 1904
From the evidence introduced at the trial of this action, instituted by the receiver of an insolvent building association to foreclose a mortgage for $2,000 given by Milton C. Conners, since deceased, the court found, among other things and in substance, that the American Building & Loan Association, subsequently changed to the American Savings & Loan Association, was organized under the laws of Minnesota, and carried on such business as its corporate name suggests until the 14th day of January, 1896, prior to which its officers had become guilty of certain violations of law by reason of which the assosiation became insolvent, and unable to perform its contracts or mature its stock, or otherwise carry on the business for which it was created. For the sole purpose of secuing a loan of $2,000, Milton C. Conners, of Lawrence county, Dak. T., became a member of the association, subscribing for 40 shares of capital stock, of the par value of $100 each, all of which were thereupon assigned to the association as collateral security, to become the absolute property of the association when matured by specified monthly payments sufficient in the aggregate to make each share actually worth $100.
So far as need be quoted, the findings of fact are as follows: “That about March 16, 1889, said Milton C. Conners, deceased, made his application to said association, in writing, for the said loan of two thousand dollars, by way of anticipation of the value of said shares of stock at their maturity. That under the by-laws of said association loans were to be awarded to stockholders only after competitive bidding. . That for a long time prior to November 13, 1889, the said association had not awarded its loans upon any competitive bidding of any kind or character, but that a fixed premium of fifty dol
Under the by-laws of the association and the statute in force at all times essential to this case, funds in the treasury could be loaned only to the stockholder offering ample security and bidding the highest premium in open meeting for the preference or prior right of loan. Section 816, Rev. Civ. Code. Unless the premium of $50 per share was determined by competitive bidding at the time the loan was negotiated, the aggregate amount paid as premium, together with the stipulated interest, being much greater than the legal rate, the excess must be regarded as usurious, and the trial court was fully justified in applying the same in satisfaction of the principal obli
Such being the law it becomes necessary to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding that the premium the borrower was required to pay was arbitrarily fixed by the association at $50 per share, instead of being determined by open competitive bidding. W. H. Harlow a local agent of the association, who assisted its traveling agent C. S Crysler in making this loan, testified that the stock in the association was taken by Mr. Conners for the purpose of making a loan, and that his attention was called at the time to a statement contained in the pamphlet of the loan association, as follows: “Premium bids are now running about $50.00 per share. • At this rate two shares of stock are required to be held for each $100.00 loaned. The cost of a loan at this premium with interest added is $1.70 per month for each $100.00.” Mr. Bishop, who was at all times closely connected with the association as one of its principal officers, and evidently very familiar with the details of the business, testified in part as follows: “Q. Did or did not any authorized officer, agent, or employee of the association ever represent to Milton C. Conners that, in ■ order to procure or obtain a loan of $2,000 from the association, it
In order to overcome the presumption that facts found by the trial court are-'fully justified, a preponderance of evidence against such findings must clearly appear from the record presented on appeal. Randall v. Burk Township, 4 S. D. 337, 57 N. W. 4; Feldman v. Trumbower, 7 S. D. 408, 64 N. W. 189; Reagan v. McKibben, 11 S. D. 270, 76 N. W. 943; Littlejohn v. County Line Creamery Co., 14 S. D. 312, 85 N. W. 588; Krueger v. Dodge, 15 S. D. 159, 87 N. W. 965. The evidence .upon .the point under consideration is practically undisputed, and
Since the statute contemplates a premium bid of a definite amount to be offered for a loan in open meeting at a time stated, and that the highest and best bidder shall be entitled to receive a loan equal in amount to the par value of his shares of stock, it is the plain duty of courts to protect our citizens from usurious extortion, however concealed, and the judgment appealed from is affirmed.