Lexington union. (Lexington, Miss.) 1838-18??, 1841-02-27
NO. 16.

| W TIC letloI VI INC commissioners mat there
was direct offer made, through Mr.. Bid
die, 10 the United States Bank, to pur-
chase The bonds. Mr. Bddle replies, TINT
II accept the the offer Of the bonds on the
terms mentioned in your letter." which
clearly shows that the bonds were Dur.
chased for the United States bank. In.
deed, no one who had any respect for his
standing in this body, would assert that
any private individual had FIVE millions of
surplus funds TO purchase the State bonds
The bonds were undoubtedly purchased
Tor the United States Bank. Section 5th
in the charter Of the Bank Of the United
States OF Pennsylvania, provides that.
The said Corporation shall not direct
ly or indirectly deal or trade in any thing
except bills of exchange, gold and silver,
bullion, or in the sale Of goods really and
truly pledged for money lent and not re.
deemed 10 good time; or goods which shall
be the proceeds of its lands neither shall
i make any loan TO any foreign Prince or
State, unless previously authorized by law.
The said Corporation shall not be at IL
berty 10 purchase any stock whatever, ex.
cept their own stock, Treasury notes or
public stocks created by the Government
ofthe United States, or of this State, or
stock OF, or loans 10, any Of the incorpora.
led companies Of this State, for the con-
struction and improvement of roads,
bridges, canals, or inland navigation, or
stocks which may be bonafed pledged as
security for debts to the Bank, and not du-
ly redeemed"
1t appears, from this clause in the char
ter OF said bank, that this purchase of
bonds sold for the benefit Of the Onion
Bank, was illegal fraudulent, and gross
and palpabie violation Of the charter Of the
Bank Of the United States. All contracts,
to make them binding, must be made by
parties competent TO contract. 1t appears
that one of the parties, the United States
Bank was not competent to contract, be-
cause there was an express provision in lie
charter prohibiting it from purchasing
stock, either directly or indirectly. The
contract, then, was imperfect and illegal,
and the United States Bank could not
have been compelled, by the laws Of tho
land 20 carry out the contract, as made
From the correspondence recled above
we derive the following additional impor-
tant Information, viz that the bonds were
, disposed OF on credit, in FIVE instalments,
, on the first day of November, 1898 on the
and on the first day of January, March,
May, and July, 1889. Section 9th of the
supplemental charter Of said back pro-
vides, that "The President and Directors
Of the said Mississippi Union Bank, or
the managers thereof, shall have ample
power to appoint three Commissioners to
negotiate and sell The State bonds, in any
market within the United State, or in any
foreign market, under such rules and reeu.
!ations as may be adopted by said Presi.
dent and Directors or managers, not incon%
sistent with the provisions OF the charter
of SAID bank provided, said bonds shall
not be sold Under their par palue.''
Here is an express provision, in the
charter, requiring the bonds TO be sold at
their par value. Money on time, is not
par, which means specie or lis equivalent.
The Commissioners did not dispose Of the
bonds in pursuance ofany power or author
fifty granted by the charter of said bank,
which charter was their only letter Of
attorney defining the extent of their power
and authority. The Commissioners were
the agents, either Of the State or Of the
Union Bank. We will first suppose they
are the agents ofthe State. Allagents are
either general or special. A special agent
is, where not only the act to be done is
prescribed, but the mode in which that act
is to be done. The Commissioners must
have been, then, the special agents Of the
State; for their duty is clearly set forth and
limited, in the charter Of the Union Bank.
If they were the special agents Of the
State, they had no power to bind the State
in any other mode than that prescribed by
the State.
The Commissioners, then, in selling the
bonds on a credit, exceeded their powers,
and the sale is Of no effect, for there is no
principle of law more firmly settled than
this, that the principal is not bound by the
act of his agent, beyond his express au-
: thority. This was recognized as the law
e in the case Of Bean VS. Allen, 18th Johns
: sons Reports, page 1868, ant in the case
: Of limerick vs.. Megg, LIST Governs Re-
0 ports, 6l5. The Court went so far as 10
] say that can agent whose wero powers
3 specific, unjust pursue them literally" 1t fol-
: lows, then, that as the Commissioners were
. the special agents ofthe State endowed with
specific powers to sell the bonds, at their
s par value, and in contraveniion Of those
d powers, sold them on credit, that the
Estate 10 mt hound for the navnnent therenf