Ripley v. Mutual Home & Savings Ass'n

All the errors assigned by appellants, except the fifth, are predicated upon the theory that section 9 of *156the act of 1897 (Acts 1897, p. 287), §3406i Homer 1897, §4463i Burns Supp., was void, so far as it provides that all contracts theretofore made between borrowers and building and loan associations, for the payment of premiums without any bidding, are legalized. This question was decided in International, etc., Assn. v. Wall, 153 Ind. 554, adversely to appellants’ theory and contention.

By the fifth error assigned appellants attempt to challenge the appointment of the special judge who…