The Yazoo City Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1842-1844, 1843-07-14

tie ct alvs Crowiber, Cromptor g. Jervisl
Exct. Rep. 3l6, Bailey on bills 81. The
rule is The same in case Of agency, though
this has been sometimes doubted.
Lord Coke thus laid down the rule "Where
man doth less than the commandment or
authority committed unto him, there the
commandment OF authority being not pur-
su0d, the act is void; and, where man doth
that which he is authorized to do, and mores
there il is good for that which is wagranledi
and void for the rest. Yet both these rules
have divers exceptions and limitations,
Co. Lit. 259. This, however, is the general
rule, and it is recognized by the ablest mod
ern writer's, 2 Kents Com. GIT. Story on
Agency 49, OF course it cannot apply
where the boundaries between the excess
and the rightful execution are not distn-
guishable The cases of excessive appoint
ments under powers for the purpose, which
are holden to be void at law, though good
in equity, seem 10 constitute exceptions to
this rule. The articles Of partnership asso.
ciaIion, or the letter of attorney form the
rule of government in these instances, Just
as the charter does in the case of q bank.
The moment it is established that banks are
included in the general terms of the Statute
regulating interest, all doubt and question
are At an end. II the words Of that statute
were that no person or bank shall take, &C.,
there would be no room to contend that the
whole contract is void for want Of power,
any more than for account Of usury; il banks
are by construction within its terms, the re-
suit to precisely the same as II they were
expressly named Indeed there is no rea-
son for the application Of rule Of construc-
ton 10 the contract Of bank made in re-
gard TO a matter within the scope of its
charter, different from that which governs
an individual. The cases except that in 9th
Ohio, according to cur UNDERSTANDING all
treat them in the same way. IL 8 corpora
ton does an act against the prohibition Of a
statute it is void; 20 Of an individual. IL
it violates a statute SUCH as a law in res
traint of banking, its contracts is void; so
Of an individual. If il does an act foreign
TO the purposes Of its institution, it is void /;
so in reference 10 partnership. If it has
power 10 a limited extent and goes beyond
il, the excess may be avoided; so Of an
agent. The almost countless cases on the
subject Of taking more interest than is allow
ed by their charter, or general law Of the
land put them on the same footing with in
diyiduals, with the single exception Of the
case in Ohio. If the uniform testimony of
Courts and Judges can. settle any point, it
is settled that the set of bank in taking
excessive interest il viewed precisely as the
act Of an individual.
The case ia Ohio established principle
different from what is settled in any other
that we have Seen, and as it has been strong
~ nrged upoh our notice, upon this point oil
want of power, it requires some examina-
lion at our hands.
The case is lonpded, as we conceive, up
on misapplication of principles. For ex-
lample here followsR portion OF its reason
ing. and that too, which is the turning point
of the decision. The court says, s'for a
corporation created for The purposes of con.
tracing a rail road, or ofAacting as a library
association, to carry on banking operations,
and 10 claim to do it under its charter, would
be absurd unless the power so to do, was
expressly or by implication authorized in IFS
charter. II an agent is restricted by The
power received from his principle, if the
Legislature Of the State cannot transcend the
powers delegated in the constitution, much
II less can corporation 90 beyond the charter
by which il exists" Now these principles
are all undeniable. If a corporation makes
a contract entirely foreign TO the purpose:
!, Of its institution, as in case a rail road com
pany or library association attempts 10 carry
on banking,the act is void, simply hscause OIL
q a want of power in reference to the subject
meter, unless there is some general law tC
cn-e It. Buff the agent exceed his author
i,v H., cct isnow void, ifa good EN- be sep
rs,od f-o-o the bad as We have already
sbowsn "a Legislature pass anAci which
lIronscsn5 The lastitution, it is void only fOl
Il tbe excees. "a has beSn often decided. The
FIRST principIe advenso TO. as TO contract
foreign TO the purposes OF Inc inss4uu2n
had nothing to do with the csc beloIe the
court, because it was an act OF SaGSing gone
by bank The last was mislpeliSog pc
cause the act was only an exceeding or the
power, which was not void, except ~.
the excess. The court had already stateC
in the same case, that by the law Of Ohio,
the taking Of usuTy BY the bank, did not pre-
vent it from recovering principal and legal
/ interest. That was in our view, in acc0r-
dance with all previous decisions, an end
Of discretionary and the act Of the ban
&c that extOnt Iegalized. To hold Otherwise
is to allow 10 the bank the benefit Of the gen.
eral law, in one particular, and to deprive il
Of the same benefit in another. The court
in Ohio in conclusion rests itsdecision, as %
the point Of want Of power, upon the case
of Ovens I'd Peters. That case does not
sustain the position. The court, in the case
Ovens SAYS in the passage already quoted,
"the question thenis, weiber such contracts
are void in law upon general principles =
The question Of power Or want Of power, IN
] IL. hanE e. M nnnn alI.a.ad III e de.