{
  "id": 8682225,
  "name": "A. C LATHAM and wife v. THE WASHINGTON BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Latham v. Washington Building & Loan Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1877-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "145",
  "last_page": "148",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.C. 145"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693870
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N C. 469",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278688
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0469-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8693870
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0292-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 380,
    "char_count": 5719,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.396,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6052034706684476e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8198821630141371
    },
    "sha256": "ea4edce2110eefa57adeb475b2ba8fc17b6566717b2f470aea6a26e35ff0ee40",
    "simhash": "1:8c8d54bb5f23ea12",
    "word_count": 978
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:46:21.915598+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "A. C LATHAM and wife v. THE WASHINGTON BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Reade, J.\nIn Mills v. The Salisbury Building and Loans Association, 75 N. C. 292, it was decided that that assoeiation, 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 \u25a0 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.\nThere 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.\nIt 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. 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.\nNo error.\n.PER CuRiAM. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Reade, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. D. M. Carter, for plaintiffs.",
      "Messrs. Jas. E. Shepherd and Gilliam \u25a0 Pruden, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "A. C LATHAM and wife v. THE WASHINGTON BUILDING AND LOAN ASSOCIATION.\nBuilding and Loan Association \u2014 Usury.\n'\"The 'law will not aid a plaintiff, when plaintiff and defendant are in pari delicto ; Therefore, where the plaintiff, who was a member of a build-x ing association and had paid usurious interest upon money borrowed therefrom, sought to recover it back; Held, that he was not entitled to relief.\njJ.Mills v. The Salisbury B. Sf L. A., 75 N. C. 292 : King v. Winants, 71 ISL C. 469, cited and approved.)\nCivil Action tried at Spring Term, 1877, of Beaufort .\u25a0Superior Court, before Eure, J.\nElizabeth J. Latham, the wife of plaintiff, was a member -of the defendant association, and transacted her business \u25a0with the same through her husband. She continued to pay \u2022 dues of one dollar per month, on each share of stock owned \"by her, until the first Monday in October, 1872, as required by the by-laws of the association. At that date she borrowed ..of the association $204 for which she executed a bond for $400 \u2022with the written assent of her husband, conditioned that she .should pay four dollars per month on two shares, until the regular dues paid thereon and the dividends arising there- \u25a0 from,\" shall have paid to the association $400. This bond \u25a0 was secured by mortgage on a house and lot in the Town of Washington with a power to sell the same in default of pay-vment as aforesaid. On the 3d of December, 1872, she received $312 more and executed a bond for $700 similar to -the above for the payment of six dollars per month on each -.\u00abhare, and this was secured by a second mortgage with like \u2022condition as above on the said house and lot. It was the custom of the association-to put up its money for sale in lots \u25a0tof $200 and the bidding was restricted to its members. The highest bidder received $200 less the per centage bid. The\" said sum of $812 Was $600 (the amount of the stock sold) less the per centage bid by the plaintiffs. There were two-other sums received by the plaintiffs at-subsequent times- and in the mauner aforesaid for which bonds were given and mortgages executed on the property to secure the payment-of the same.\nIn August, 1876, the association adopted the following\u2019 resolution; \u201cThat the Secretary be instructed to state the-account of each member of the association who has stock redeemed, charging interest at the rate of six per cent per' annum, on the sum of money received in redeeming, giving, credit for all dues paid in, either as dues, interest, or fines,., and charging to each share of stock its quota of expenses and losses.\u201d. Upon stating the accounts, it was ascertained that-the plaintiffs had overpaid to the amount of $92.06. The asso--ciation was winding up its business under said resolution,., and the plaintiffs brought an action for the recovery of said amount alleged to be due them, insisting that the contract-was usurious and that said, payment had been made under a> mistake of fact.\nA jury trial being waived, Ilis Honor found that the payment was not made under a mistake of fact, and that the assets of the association would not be sufficient to pay th\u00a9 present stockholders the amounts they had paid in;- and held that the facts did not disclose a usurious contracts There was judgment that the action be dismissed, fromr which the plaintiffs appealed,\nMr. D. M. Carter, for plaintiffs.\nMessrs. Jas. E. Shepherd and Gilliam \u25a0 Pruden, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0145-01",
  "first_page_order": 159,
  "last_page_order": 162
}