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

artificial being, and in 2 Peters 323, Bank lc
of Kentucky vs. Wister. ct al, it is called a 1
metaphysical person. II has been frequent Y
by lie subject of adjudication, whether cor
porations were embraced in the general term
persons, inhabitants, and the de- Is
cisiops hold that they are 2 Coke lust 703 9
PeOpie vs. Utica ms Co. Is Johns $50, Mott
IS Hicks, Cowan 543, Maine Bank vs. :
Bdus9 Mass. as. Bank of The Valley vs. !,
Stribing Ran: II VIII 4l2, IL Peters 1875, \
ID Peters 5S9, 2 Hill 267. This lstmight k
be much extended and the cases so far as / k
have seen, al! hold that corporations are in
cluded in the word persons in a general
statute. Il has been repeatedly so decided |,
in reference TO the statutes Of usury, in cases
where banks were resisting as we'll as seek
ling that application of the law. The cases
are very numerous where the usuary laws
have been applied to the transactions Of /
Banks sub silentio, without question on either
side. Bank Burlington VS. Dufhee / Yer: |
404; lb. $50. II Pit. $50, u S. Bank VS.
Wagner et al Peters, Peters 43.
An actof Incorporation never attempts to
embody all rules and principles which are
to govern the institution which it creates.
OF necessity it has reference TO the exist
ing laws Of the State in which it is passed.
I Those laws apply as fOrcibly TO an artificial
person at The time Of its creation, as to a
natural person at birth. The one is govern
ed by them except so far as exempted by
It's charter, Just as the other is clothed with
/ them at the first moment Of existence. A
charter con tdining provisions contrary TO the
/ constitution, would be void, precisely as any
. other legislative act. This shows that the
T general laws in force at the time Of its Gre
. alton bear upon i, except so far as lis char
a Ter may take il out Of their influence
b Angel s. Ames 10, McCarty vs.. Orphan
9 Asylum Society, Cowen, 463. The only
: objection urged in argument to this is. that
t it would tend to divesi vested rights. The
J principle as here laid down has no such
| tendency, because it is restricted to tbs
s laws in force at the time thecharter is enac-
! ted. But corporations are likewise subject
) to subsequent legislative action. "A State
e law may be retrospective in It's charter, and
}, may diVest vested rights, and ret not violate
l. the constitution, unless it also impairs the
o obligation of the contract" Charles River
t. Bridge VS.. Western Bridge IL Pet, 400
N Angel o. Ames, AZ.
k indeed the argument for the defendan,
z, in error is founded upon the assumption
s. that this corporatioa is subject to the gen
~ eral law of the land, for it demands thu
le application of a common law principle 4
by this contract, in order to make it void. Tn
ay common law can only be in force,i thi
IS. State, 10 the extent that it remains un
e. changed by statute; the common law rul
es against usuIy, at the time of the enactmeu
Sc of this bank charter, was so far modified
Of that the contract was only avoided as TO III
ch interest. The common law rule making til
far contract wholly void, was to this extent re
lat pealed by necessary implication; how the
rts can its principle be invoked to operate o
of IL contract?
id, BY the words Of the charter as above Sc
ate forth, the bank, in regard to loans for twelv
months, is not restrained by express WORD
he from taking more than 8 per cent; there
he neither any prohibition by way of penalty
-pe it follows that there is no restriction at
les unless il be an implied one, or unless v
me apply the general statute of interest to tt
Of bank. This would be right, and if the bal
sby has contracted for more interest than is ;
lowed by its charter it can only recover 4
Il. principal sum lent.
raD The case most strongly urged against Il
a. conclusion, is that Of the bank Of the Unit
- States vs.. Owen, 2 Peters, 527. It has be-
oaT pressed upon Us with so much earnestne
q, in support of the position, that the contra
~ if infected with usury is utterly void, Il
,h;s We feel it duty TO examine it, and slit
) &c WAY we cannot concur in il. The first 81
49, in this process is to ascertain precisely wi
i; was in question, and what was decided
,ore That case upon this point. In reference
a;no liis matter the court itself says:--s''1
&c question here has relation exclusively to
;vod legal effect Of a violation Of the provis
- 81 the charter on the subject of interC
!. and does not bring in question the operat
nor, Of the statute Of usnFy of Kentucky u
e the validity Of the contract To undsTst
y: the gist Of the question, il is necessary
NJ observe, that although the act Of incoTp
!. !. lion forbids the taking Of more than six
~ cent, It does not declare void any cont
reserving a greater sum than is permit
-: Most, if not all the acts passed in Eng
. ,S1 and in the States on the same subject,
! = clare such contracts usurious and void
@bon s'Ths question then is, whether such
/ sad tracts are void IN law, upon general pr
80 pies. The answer would seem 70 be
. .oh' and obvious, that no court Of justice ca
Is az its nature be made the handmade ct iniq
Kan Courts are Instituted 10 carry into effec
Z an laws Of the country, how can they the1