24 Pa. Super. 256 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1904
Opinion by
The Mutual Guarantee Building and Loan Association is a corporation of" the state of New Jersey, and had prior to the transactions out of which this litigation arose established an office in the city of Philadelphia and obtained a certificate of registration authorizing it to do business in the State of Pennsylvania, under the provisions of the act of April 22, 1874, relating to foreign corporations. The Land Title and Trust company is a corporation of the state of Pennsylvania, having its offices in the city of Philadelphia. The latter corporation, acting as trustee for the former, loaned to the defendant the sum of $3,000 ; as security for which debt the defendant executed and delivered to said trustee his bond and mortgage, in said sum, and assigned to said trustee thirty, shares of the stock of
The plaintiff issued a writ of scire facias upon this mortgage ; the parties agreed to dispense with trial by jury and the case was tried and determined by the judge of the court below, under the' provisions of the Act of April 22, 1874, P. L. 109. The learned judge of the court below, after hearing the evidence, certified a balance in favor of the defendant in the sum of 1519.45, from which finding we have this appeal. The mortgagee asserted the right to collect the fines and premiums which the charter of the New Jersey corporation and the laws of that state authorize. It is further contended on behalf of the plaintiff that the court was without authority to certify a balance in favor of the defendant in this proceeding.
The powers and immunities granted to building and loan associations incorporated under the Act of April 29, 1874, P. L. 73, section 37, and the several supplements thereto, do not extend to corporations not chartered under that legislation and managed and controlled in accordance with its provisions. The premiums, fines, and interest on such premiums accruing to said corporation, which the statute declares shall not be deemed usurious, are those which accrue “ according to the provision of this act.” The legislation was intended to regulate the dealings between a domestic corporation and its members, and not between it and those who were not members. When such a corporation loans money to a person who is not a member, it can recover only the amount actually loaned with legal interest: Wolbach v. The Lehigh Building Association, 84 Pa. 211. An unincorporated building association cannot recover more than the amount actually loaned to its members and legal interest: Jarrett v. Cope, 68 Pa. 67. The benefits of the legislation regulating the affairs of such associations accrue only to those which are incorporated under and
This was a proceeding in rem and the learned judge of the court below found and certified a balance in favor of the defendant, upon which, under the provisions of the Act of April 11,1848, P. L. 536, the defendant is “ entitled to judgment and execution, in like manner as if the verdict were in favor of the plaintiff.” The only execution which the plaintiff could have issued, had it obtained a judgment, would have been a writ for the sale of the land. Of what avail would such an execution be to this defendant, he could not sell his own land. The weight of authority seems to be against the granting of a certificate to the defendant in a proceeding of this nature: Bayne v. Gaylord, 3 Watts, 301; Hunt v. Gilmore, 59 Pa. 450. We must hold the certificate to be irregular, and while, following the practice established by the Supreme Court in Bayne v. Gaylord, supra, sustaining the judgment in favor of the defendant, set the certificate aside.
The judgment is affirmed, and the certificate of a balance in favor of the defendant quashed.
