Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1840-06-26

Law CASE AL PHILADELpurA.--The
Pennsylvania contains report of case,
or rather number of cases, (which for the
economy of time, as they all rested on SINH
lar grounds, were heard at oncc) tried in the
District Court of the City and County of
Philadelphia, in which John Eliot Thaycr
was plaintiff and the Bank of the United
defendant. The action was brought on sew
cral notes Of the Bank, which had been
regularly protested. They were presented
on several different days from Jan. 6, to
April 25, 1910, and amounted to S129, 1000.
Mr., Freeman opened the argument for the plain
tns by stating the case of the action, and calling the
attention of the court to the affidavit of defence, by
which it appears that the plaintiffs claim to the
amount the face of the notes sued upon is admitted
and that the only questions in dispute arc ls Whcth
or the plaintiffs entitled to the penal interest of II
per cent under article 9th and section 4h of the Char
ter of tho Bank defendant for refusing pay its notes
on demand I'd. Whether they are entitled TO the
fees and charges of notarlal protest I'd Whether
they are bound to hiring the notes sued into Court,
~ place them in the custody of its officers other
Der, before they can claim Judgment against the
defendant on the motion.
MIR Cadwalladcr and Mr.. Meredith ap-
pcarcd for the Bank, and argued against the
recovery of the - per cent. penal interest
and the fees. In reply to these arguments,
Mr.. Dexter in behalf of the plaintiffs resident in
Massachusetts, summed up the arguments advanced
in eloquent clear and forcibe manner, and lis
| tened to with marked attention. He contcnded tina
as the plaintiffs had pursued the of Assembly ere
atng the Court, they were entitled to judgement a
once and that although the Court could not regarC
any paper as the basis of their Judgment other thar
that described in the act itself yet after SATISFYING
themselves that Judgment is due, they may consiloi
a state filed in order TO ascertain the amount of dalr-
ages to be assessed. The charter of the Bank defn-
dant being public law is iudciay before the Count
and they are bound to notice all its parts and to nll,
its penalties. The plaintiffs entitled by law ia
to receive per cent interest and the Court bound
to assess it among the damages, because in
ing the act they must ondoavor to reach and proven
the mischief which the penalty was designed to RENE
dy. The right to receive this additional interest aic
demand and refusal, is part Of the original con
and being once vested, cannot be taken away by an
subsequent act of the Legislature. All that can b
meant by the Resumption Bill is to suspend the labi
ty of the banks to n forfeiture of their charter for
certain time and upon certain conditions, because tn
assembly could not impair the obligation of the cor
tract between the banks and their creditors, by tax
ing off the pecuniary penalty due TO the one for
breach offa,h by the other.
Noaral fees are not claimed here as part Of tn
lar, and sRSd S SrepSe be- aowed
} Mr. Williams, for the defendant, and Mr.. Trouba
for the plaintiffs declined spending, as the dlscusso
had already consumed two days, and the cases wer
} here closed. The decision of the Court may be CT
f pectcd early next week.