The nature and effect of the relations created between a loan fund association and its members under articles of association and bonds and mortgages, containing provisions like those in this case, are defined in many particulars by the express stipulations between the parties and by previous decisions of this court.
Every person becoming a member of the association pays an entrance fee, and is also obliged to pay, during the existence of the corporation, monthly dues of two dollars a share, and, in case
It follows that the plaintiffs, having acquired by purchase and descent the title in the land mortgaged by a member of the corporation upon the redemption of her share, are not entitled to redeem the land from the mortgage without paying the interest
But upon that day, as appears by the master’s report, the defendant, who was the secretary of the corporation, purchased and took assignments to himself of all the bonds, mortgages and assets of the corporation, and of all the unredeemed shares of its members. In this condition of things, there was no longer a quorum of members necessary for the transaction of business, no meetings could be held to which the plaintiffs might appeal from the entries of the secretary, which are declared by the bylaws to be primd facie evidence, nor for the election or removal of officers to whom the plaintiffs must apply for the redemption of their land from the mortgage, nor for any other corporate object or purpose. Articles 1, 3, 12, 18, 30, 31.
The liability to pay monthly dues, or fines, or interest on the amount advanced, cannot extend beyond the existence of the association. This was assumed in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Hoar in Bowker v. Mill River Loan Fund Association, 7 Allen, 100, and is the necessary effect of the contract between the parties. The transactions of November 30, 1866, amounted to a complete suspension, at least, if not to a final dissolution, of the corporation, by the unanimous consent of all the members. Angel! & Ames on Corp. §§ 768-770. It would be most inequitable to oblige one party, or those holding by assignment his interest, to continue to make the payments required of him by the contract, while the other party has incapacitated himself from carrying out the provisions made in the same contract for ascertaining the extent of the mutual obligations of the parties, &i¡ d for securing the performance1 thereof on his own part.
The result is, that the plaintiffs, upon paying the amount due oh November 30, 1866, with interest thereon, are entitled to a
Decree for redemption.