Latham v. Washington Building & Loan Ass'n

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Latham v. Washington Building & Loan Ass'n

77 N.C. 145

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1877

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 77 N.C. 145 (Latham v. Washington Building & Loan Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Latham v. Washington Building & Loan Ass'n, 77 N.C. 145 (N.C. 1877).

Pincite

Opinion

Reade, J.

In Mills v. The Salisbury Building and Loans Association, 75 N. C. 292, it was decided that that assoeia *147 tion, which was substantially like the association in this case, was not such as was contemplated by the statute under which it and this were organized. And that its-contracts with those who dealt with it under its by-laws and regulations could not be supported by the Courts. And because such associations were numerous and embraced a ■ large amount of capital and business transactions, it was suggested that their existing contracts should be settled upon a-liberal and just basis, and that-the future transactions should conform to law. And it is to the credit of the-defendant association that it immediately adopted a resolution in conformity to that suggestion.

There is no doubt that the by-laws and course of dealings-of the defendant were unlawful, and its dealings with the plaintiffs were unlawful and usurious. And if at any time-the plaintiffs had repudiated the association and the association had sought the aid of the Court to enforce the contract,, the Court would have refused its aid. But whatever the defendant association was, these plaintiffs wore; for they were parts and parcels of it, and the Court will no more aid them against the defendant than it would have aided the-defendant against them. They are in pari delicto. Whatever hardship the association has practiced upon them, it-has probably with their aid and for their advantage practiced upon others of its members. Whatever has been executed must therefore stand. The Court will not undo it.

It is found as a fact in the case that the plaintiffs paid under no mistake of fact. They might have repented of their connection with the unauthorized association and refused compliance with their undertaking; and if the association had attempted to coerce them, the Courts would have enjoined it, as in Mills v. Salisbury, supra. But having engaged the adventure and voluntarily paid the loss, they cannot ask the Courts to afford them the luxury of recovering it back. A gambles with B and' loses money. *148 Tbe Courts will not compel him to pay. But if he pay bis losses, the Courts will not enable him'to recover them back. King v. Winants, 71 N C. 469.

No error.

.PER CuRiAM. Judgment affirmed.

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

Reade, J.

In Mills v. The Salisbury Building and Loans Association, 75 N. C. 292, it was decided that that assoeia *147 tion, which was substantially like the association in this case, was not such as was contemplated by the statute under which it and this were organized. And that its-contracts with those who dealt with it under its by-laws and regulations could not be supported by the Courts. And because such associations were numerous and embraced a ■ large amount of capital and business transactions, it was suggested that their existing contracts should be settled upon a-liberal and just basis, and that-the future transactions should conform to law. And it is to the credit of the-defendant association that it immediately adopted a resolution in conformity to that suggestion.

There is no doubt that the by-laws and course of dealings-of the defendant were unlawful, and its dealings with the plaintiffs were unlawful and usurious. And if at any time-the plaintiffs had repudiated the association and the association had sought the aid of the Court to enforce the contract,, the Court would have refused its aid. But whatever the defendant association was, these plaintiffs wore; for they were parts and parcels of it, and the Court will no more aid them against the defendant than it would have aided the-defendant against them. They are in pari delicto. Whatever hardship the association has practiced upon them, it-has probably with their aid and for their advantage practiced upon others of its members. Whatever has been executed must therefore stand. The Court will not undo it.

It is found as a fact in the case that the plaintiffs paid under no mistake of fact. They might have repented of their connection with the unauthorized association and refused compliance with their undertaking; and if the association had attempted to coerce them, the Courts would have enjoined it, as in Mills v. Salisbury, supra. But having engaged the adventure and voluntarily paid the loss, they cannot ask the Courts to afford them the luxury of recovering it back. A gambles with B and' loses money. *148 Tbe Courts will not compel him to pay. But if he pay bis losses, the Courts will not enable him'to recover them back. King v. Winants, 71 N C. 469.

No error.

.PER CuRiAM. Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 N.C. 145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/latham-v-washington-building-loan-assn-nc-1877.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack