Knutson v. Northwestern Loan & Building Ass'n

69 N.W. 889, 67 Minn. 201, 1897 Minn. LEXIS 136
CourtSupreme Court of Minnesota
DecidedJanuary 15, 1897
DocketNos. 10,376—(282)
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 69 N.W. 889 (Knutson v. Northwestern Loan & Building Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Knutson v. Northwestern Loan & Building Ass'n, 69 N.W. 889, 67 Minn. 201, 1897 Minn. LEXIS 136 (Mich. 1897).

Opinion

CANTY, J.

The Northwestern Loan & Building Association, a corporation, was organized as a building and loan association. It [203]*203became insolvent, in tlie sense that its assets had depreciated, and it would not be able to mature its stock, and a receiver was appointed to wind it up. One McLaughlin, a borrowing member, made a proposition of settlement. The receiver submitted such proposition to the court, and asked for instructions as to how he should settle with McLaughlin and all other borrowing members. The court, on proper notice, made an order instructing the receiver to accept McLaughlin’s proposition, and settle with all the other borrowing members in the same manner. From this order a number of such other borrowing members appeal.

According to the plan of the association, the par value of the stock, when matured, would be $100 per share. McLaughlin took 10 shares of stock, and on April 14, 1892, procured a loau or advancement of $1,000 on the same. He agreed, pursuant to the bylaws, to pay each month 50 cents premium and 50 cents interest on each $100 of the loan, and also to pay 65 cents per month dues on each $100 of his said stock, “until the dues so credited on the stock, together with the dividends declared thereon, shall equal the amount loaned.” The performance of this agreement was secured by a bond and real-estate mortgage given by McLaughlin. He made these payments from that time until the commencement of the proceedings to wind up the corporation, when he had paid:

On stock ........................................................ $233 24
As interest ...................................................... 235 00
As premiums .................................................... 235 00
Total ............................................'.......... $703 24

Pursuant to his said proposition, the court ordered that he be charged with the $1,000, and interest thereon at the rate of 7 percent. per annum from the date on which he borrowed the same, and that he be credited with the sums so paid as interest and premiums,

“Together with interest at 7 per cent, per annum on said payments of interest and premiums from their respective dates in the manner of partial payments, * * * leaving the stock payments made by him, the said McLaughlin, of $233.24 * * * in the hands of said receiver, to await the winding up of the said corporation, and to be paid back to him, the said McLaughlin, in the regular course of distribution by the receiver.”

[204]*204The by-laws, among other things, provide:

“Sec. 34. Each investing member shall pay into the treasury of the association not less than sixty-five cents per month on each one hundred dollars of running stock owned by him, * * * until such monthly payments, together with such other sums as he may choose to pay, and such dividends as may be declared thereon, shall together amount to the face value of said stock, at which time the member shall be entitled to receive the par value thereof in cash.”
“Sec. 36. All loans shall bear interest at the rate of six per cent, per year during the continuance of the loan, payable at the rate of fifty cents per month on each $100 of loan made.
“Sec. 37. All loans shall bear premium at a rate fixed annually by the board of directors.
“Sec. 38. Each borrowing member shall pay to the association not less than one dollar and sixty-five cents per month on each one hundred dollars of loan made to him, which sum shall be applied as follows : First. To the payment of any fines or other assessments made against him in pursuance of the by-laws. Second. To the payment of the premium due on such loan. Third. To the payment of the interest due on such loan. Fourth. The balance of such payment shall be credited as dues on the stock on which such loan is taken. Such payments shall be continued until the dues so> credited on the stock, together with the dividends declared thereon, shall equal the amount loaned. The loan and the stock on which it was taken shall then both be canceled, and the borrower’s mortgage released.”
“Sec. 43. The board of directors, on the first day of January and July of each year, shall declare such dividends as may accrue from the earnings of the association, after deducting therefrom all expenses and losses, and also such sum as they may reserve for the fund used for the payment of contingent losses.”

Section 48 provides that investing members may withdraw at any time, and shall receive back certain specified portions of the amounts paid in, not exceeding the net profits of the association. It further provides:

“A borrower may pay off his loan on application, at any time, by paying the balance due after deducting the value of the shares assigned to the association as collateral; or the shares may be redeemed and retained by paying the amount of the loan in full.”

It also appears from the report of the receiver that less than one-third in cost of the assets of the association is invested in present mortgage loans (made to its members); that the rest of such assets consist mainly of real estate which cost the association very much [205]*205more than its present value; and that all that can be realized from all of the assets will repay the present members much less than they have contributed to the association.

The so-called “insolvency” of the association, and the proceedings to wind it up, put an end to the contract between it and its members, at least so far as future performance is concerned. Strohen v. Franklin S. F. Assn., 115 Pa. St. 273, 8 Atl. 843; Brownlie v. Bussell, L. R. 8 App. Cas. 235; Towle v. American B. L. & I. Assn., 61 Fed. 446.

Again, the original scheme has totally failed, and can be carried out in scarcely any particular. The members can no longer withdraw in the manner provided by the by-laws. Brownlie v. Bus-sell, supra. The stock can never be matured, and the members have no right to be repaid in the order in which the stock of each would have matured if the scheme was successful, and had been carried through. Then, in winding up such a corporation, we can see no principle on which to proceed in adjusting matters between it and its members, except the principle of rescission, so far as the same can be equitably and justly applied. Each member should, to this extent, receive back what he paid and pay back what he received.

It may be urged that the theory of rescission here adopted will, in many cases, offer a great inducement to the borrowing member to attempt to have the association wound up by the court. For instance, where the borrowing member has paid, or agreed to pay, a large amount of premium for the loan or advancement to him, he will receive back the premiums paid and escape payment of the unpaid premiums if he can wind up the association and settle with it on the theory of a rescission of his contract. But it must be remembered that, before the association can be thus wound up, there must be such a deficiency of assets that it appears that the scheme has failed, and the purposes for which the association was organized cannot be carried out.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lowden v. Northwestern Nat. Bank & Trust Co.
11 F. Supp. 929 (D. Minnesota, 1935)
Saunders v. State Savings & Loan Ass'n
237 N.W. 572 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1931)
Smith v. Bath Loan & Building Ass'n
136 A. 284 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1927)
Green v. National Advertising & Amusement Co.
162 N.W. 1056 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)
Thwing v. McDonald
156 N.W. 780 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1916)
Southwestern Surety Ins. Co v. Davis
1915 OK 1066 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1915)
Groover v. Pacific Coast Sav. Society
127 P. 495 (California Supreme Court, 1912)
Floyd-Jones v. Anderson
76 P. 751 (Montana Supreme Court, 1904)
Lewis v. Clark
129 F. 570 (Ninth Circuit, 1904)
Ottensoser v. Scott
47 Fla. 276 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1904)
Spinney v. Chapman
95 N.W. 230 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1903)
Western Realty & Investment Co. v. Haase
53 A. 861 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1903)
People's Building & Loan Ass'n v. McPhilamy
81 Miss. 61 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1902)
Spinney v. Miller
86 N.W. 317 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Hale v. Kline
85 N.W. 814 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1901)
Hale v. Gullick
84 N.W. 196 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)
Hale v. Phillips
59 S.W. 35 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1900)
Clarke v. Olson
83 N.W. 519 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1900)
Manorita v. Fidelity Trust & Loan Co.
101 F. 8 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern Alabama, 1900)
Columbia Finance & Trust Co. v. Tharp
56 N.E. 265 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
69 N.W. 889, 67 Minn. 201, 1897 Minn. LEXIS 136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knutson-v-northwestern-loan-building-assn-minn-1897.