Banks and Banking

(2) Whether such corporation has the right to engage in such business within this State through the medium of branch agents, or otherwise, without obtaining a license.

I understand this request for an opinion is based upon a letter to you from the Polish-American Steamship Agency, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and duly licensed to engage in the money exchange business by the State of New York, requesting to be advised under what conditions that Company can carry on a money exchange business in the State of Pennsylvania, and stating further that in order to do so it may be necessary to have solicitors in the State of Pennsylvania.

The Act approved the 19th day of June, A. D. 1911, P. L. 1060, "to provide for licensing and regulating private banking in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and providing penalties for the violation thereof," sets forth that no individual, partnership or unincorporated association shall hereafter engage, directly or indirectly, in the business of receiving deposits of money for safe-keeping, or for the purpose of transmission to another, or for any other purpose, without having first obtained a license to engage in such business.

Section 6 excepts from the provisions of the Act: (1) Banks incorporated by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (2) Hotel companies; (3) Express companies or telegraph companies receiving money for transmission; (4) Individuals, partnerships or unincorporated associations who file with the Commissioner of Banking a bond in the sum of $100,000; or deposits securities with the Commissioner of Banking; (5) Licensed brokerage firms; (6) Firms engaged in private banking for some years prior to the passage of the Act.

In my opinion, the Act in no way applies to corporations either domestic or foreign. It does not authorize such corporations to be licensed to do such business, and if a domestic corporation cannot be licensed to engage in the business contemplated by this Act of Assembly, certainly a foreign corporation cannot be licensed to engage in the same business.

You are, therefore, advised that such agent or solicitor of the Polish-American Steamship Agency, a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, must be licensed as an individual under the provisions of the Act of 1911, supra., in order to solicit and receive money to be transmitted to the Polish-American Steamship Agency in New York, and by the Polish-American Steamship Agency in New York to persons in foreign countries.

Building and Loan Associations.

Building and Loan Associations-Stock-Matured Value

When a series of the stock of a building and loan association has matured, the owners of the stock are entitled to receive the matured value of their shares. Directors of the association have no right to deduct from the matured value any sum to be set aside for contingent losses.

Attorney General's Department. Opinion to John S. Morrison, First Deputy Commissioner of Banking.

Myers, Deputy Attorney General, January 22, 1920.

Your request for an opinion as to whether or not a building and loan association, whose shares showed a mature value of $201.74, was justified in deducting' $1.74 from each share and allowing the shareholder $200.00, the par value thereof, has been referred to me.

The Act of May 14, 1913, P. L. 205, Section 1, provides:

"That it shall be lawful for any mutual savings fund or building and loan association, now incorporated or hereafter to be incorporated:

"(a) To set aside from the net profits a sum, not to exceed five per centum thereof each year, as a reserve fund for the payment of contingent losses, until the total amount of such fund so set aside shall equal five per centum of the assets of such association * * *

In connection with your request for an opinion on this matter, you have forwarded a considerable amount of correspondence and the Thirteenth Annual Report of the Building and Loan Association whose directors deducted the sum of $1.74 from the amount paid the shareholder.

This report for the year ending September 15, 1919, shows the "present value" of stock of the second series marked "matured' to be $201.74. If, therefore, that was the matured value. of the stock, the shareholder was entitled to receive the matured value and the directors had no right to deduct from the matured value any sum to be set aside for contingent losses.

The par value of $200.00 had evidently been reached some time prior to the date of September 15, 1919, at which time. it had reached the value of $201.74. The regular meeting of the Association was the second Thursday of each month, and the second Thursday of September, 1919, was on the 11th of September. The regular meeting of the Association in August was on the 14th of August. In order to bring his shares of stock to the value set forth in the report as of September 15th, it was necessary for the shareholder to pay his dues at the meeting on the 11th of September and the meeting on the 14th

Delaware County

of August. Presumably the shares matured at a value of $200.00 some time between the regular meetings for the months of August and September. When they matured the shareholder was entitled to his money; that is, the par value of the shares, and if the series was continued, and he paid in afterward, he was also entitled to the additional value over and above the par value of the shares.

If the directors of the Association were disposed to set aside a certain amount out of the profits of the Association for the year to meet contingent losses, in accordance with the Act of 1913 before referred to, they could have done so, and they should have done so before the stock of the series matured.

This amount should have been deducted from the profits of the Asociation on all its business for the year and not arbitrarily deducted from a sum which was the value of the shares of a particular series at the date of the end of the year, to wit, September 15th.

In my opinion the directors of the Association are not justified in deducting the sum of $1.74 from each share under the stated facts, as submitted in the correspondence and report hereinbefore referred to, and you are therefore so advised.

Delaware County

Delaware County-Act relating to county prison--Special ActRepeal by general act.

The special Act of March 22, 1871, P. L. 436, relative to the Delaware County Prison, was not repealed by the general Act of June 19, 1913, P. L. 528.

Attorney General's Department. Opinion to Harry S. McDevitt, Secretary to the Governor.

Swoope, Deputy Attorney General, February 2, 1920.

Your letter of January 22nd, asking for an opinion as to whether the notice to deliver a convict sentenced to electrocution should, under a special Act relating to Delaware County be directed to the Sheriff or to the Warden of the county jail, under the Acts of Assembly hereinafter mentioned, duly received. In reply would say, that the special Act of March 22, 1871, P. L. 436, Section 7, provides as follows:

"That the keeper of said prison, appointed and qualified to act, and who shall have entered upon the duties of his office, he shall, ex-officio, be the keeper of the jail of Delaware county, and shall have the same power which by law is now vested in the high sheriff of said county; Provided neverthe

Delaware County

less, That the said keeper shall and he is hereby bound to deliver unto the sheriff of the said county, all prisoners who, by virtue of any sentence, order or decree of any court, he shall be required and directed to receive and take charge of for the purpose of carrying into execution such sentence, order

or decree.'

The general Act of June 19, 1913, P. L. 528, Section 4, provides as follows:

"Upon the receipt of such warrant the said warden shall, by a written notice under his hand and seal, duly notify the officer having the custody of such convict to deliver such convict to the custody of such warden, and it shall be the duty of such officer to forthwith cause such delivery to be made. Thereupon, and until the penalty of death shall be inflicted, or until lawfully discharged from such custody, said convict shall be kept in solitary confinement in said penitentiary. During such confinement no person except the officers of such penitentiary, the counsel of such convict, and a spiritual adviser selected by such convict, or the members of the immediate family of such convict, shall be allowed access to such convict without an order of said court or a judge thereof."

This Act of June 19, 1913, has a general repealing clause in Section 11, in these words: "All acts or parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed."

The question, therefore, arises in this case, whether the general repealing clause at the end of the Act of June 19, 1913, by implication repeals the special Act of March 22, 1871, relating to Delaware County.

It has been decided by our Supreme Court that a local or special act is not repealed by implication by a subsequent general statute containing inconsistent provisions on the same. subject, in the absence of a clear and manifest legislative intent disclosed by the general açt to repeal the local act.

Parkway Opening, 249 Pa. 367.

"A local law is presumably passed to meet local and exceptional conditions, and a general statute is passed to meet general conditions, but this does not imply that the local conditions are changed, or that the legislature intended to change the law previously deemed necessary or appropriate to such local conditions."

Commonwealth vs Brown, 210 Pa. 29.

"Where a prior law is local and particular, and the later law is general, there is no presumption of intention to repeal the

Cold Storage Butter.

prior law by the later one, but, on the contrary, this is a very strong presumption that no such intent existed."

Commonwealth vs Brown, 25 Super. Ct. 269.

"A general repealing clause it not to be interpreted, when standing alone, as evidence of any intention to repeal prior local laws, unless there is something else in the act to evidence such intention."

Starr vs Caldwell, 17 Dist. Rept. 689.

"A local statute is not repealed or affected by a subsequent general act, where neither interferes with the other and both may be enforced."

Pittsburgh Legal Journal vs Bruff, 19 Dist. Rept. 591.

We would, therefore, alvise you that as the special Act of March 22, 1871, relating to Delaware County, has never been expressly repealed, as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the general Act of June 19, 1913, and as both of them can be carried out, this Act is still in force and that therefore, the notice, so far as relates to convicts confined in the Delaware County Jail should be directed to the Sheriff of said County as the person who, under Section 7 of the special Act of March 22, 1871, P. L. 435, is the legal custodian of a prisoner sentenced.

Cold Storage Butter.

Cold storage butter-Sale of-Limit of storage.

The United States Navy Department cannot legally sell in Pennsylvania butter that has been in cold storage more than twelve months.

Attorney General's Department. Opinion to James Foust, Director, Bureau of Foods.

Hargest, Deputy Attorney General, January 20, 1920.

This Department is in receipt of your request of January 15, 1920, enclosing copies of telegrams in reference to the sale of cold storage butter by the Navy Yard in Philadelphia.

It appears that some of the butter which the Navy Yard proposes to sell has been in cold storage for more than twelve months.

The telegram from Commander J. D. Robenett to you indicates that the butter is of good quality, has passed a chemical test, and compares favorably with first-class fresh butter. The Commander says in his telegram: