Southern Argus. [volume] (Columbus, Miss.) 1834-1842, 1838-05-22
ITO be cOntinued.)

Most IMPORTANT DECISlONs- ~ AOA'
lowing decision of the u. s. Court viii be
canine. we have no doubt, with the deep.
- degree of interest by our readers. i
0oes the whole length of declaring every
Contract heretofore made in the State of
Alabama, by any Mississippi or other for
sign Bank agency, to be absolutely void,
and Ofno effect. Even Mr.. Biddle's Ope-
raiions in Mobile, through any agency
there, IS not left untouched!
Wei have already heard more than one
person say, that they have received IL l-2
cents per pound for their Cotton, from the
TOmbigby Rail Road Bank, and they mean
20 keep 10
The Brandon Bank has also had extern
sive transactions with the people Ofthis
County, and will not fail to suffer TO con-
siderable extent.
That decision is correct, and will be
affirmed by the Supreme Court ofthe Uni
ted States, is beyond doubt.
CIRCUIT COURT, u. s. SO. DIST ALA.
APRIL TERM, 1888.
N. Orleans and Carrolton Rail Road
company, DSs JUS De- GoItOs
This was an action of aSsWmpsit
brought to recover from defendent the
amount due on Bill of Exchange endors.
ed by him to the Plaintifs.-Plea-Gene-
raj Issue.
The Plaintiffs produced in evidence the
Law Of Louisiana Incorporating the NO.
& G. R. r. Co., comforting on them the
privileges of suing and being sued and
making contracts and exercising the
powers of private corporation. One
section of the act of incorporation gave
authority to deal in exchange, and to do all
that Banks may do to a full extent Of
their powers and privileges. They also
produced and proved the Bill of Exchange
and endorsed by defendent, and regular
demands, refusal to pay, and protest for
nOn-payment.
The defendent proved that tho Bill q
Exchange sued on, was made and endors.
ed in the City of Mobile and State of Ala
hama. That it was purchased in Noble
by the Agent of the Plaintiffs with the fumes
of the N, .. & C. r. R. Bank, and thus
payment for it was made in the Cityof
Mobile. Upon cross-examinatIOn the VIII
ness stated that the plaintiffs had been AZ :.
customed to send Bills and Notes, paya-
bic in Mobile, to that place, for collection
and to invest such collections in Bills of
Exchange the more convenient to remit
them to New Orleans. Upon this eyi.
dence the cause was most deliberately ar.
gued at Bar; the Counsel for the defendent
that inasmuch as the Ma D, &C.
r. r. Co. was Banking Company in
corpOrated by the Legislature Of Louisiana,
If had no authority out of the State of LsOui-
siana to discount Notes and negotiate Bills
of Exchange; and that the contract in this
case being between parties, one of which
was incapable of SO contracting in the
State of Alabama, it was void. The de.
tendent's counsel also commended that it
would be against the public policy ofthe
State of Alabama to sustain such a con-
tract, inasmuch as that State by its cOnsti-
tuition and Laws had reserved to itselfex-
pressly the privilege of Banking as a
means of raising a revenue.
His Honor Judge Mckinley (the asso-
ciate Judge not sitting in this causel In
structed the Jury, that if they believed
from the evidence, that the contract OF
which the action was founded was made il
the State of Alabama, they ought to End
verdict for the defendent-if they believed
was made in the State of Louisiana tn
verdict should be for the plaintiffs. Ur
der these instructions the Jury found
verdict for the defendent. Exception
were taken by plaintiffs counsel to th
charge of the Court, but were oveTIulel
and It is understood that the cause viii
taken to the Supreme Court.