Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1845-11-03
CARRoLLToN MONDAY. NOVEMBER 8. 1915.


perl published at Jackson, of Aug. 20th,
l845.-- Argument of J. Tallmadge and
D. B. Ogden, in case of McLaren VS.. Pen
nington, / Paige's C. r. lO7, and the
Chancellor at p. 1ll.--Folger vs.. Chase,
Is Pick. R.-And T. E. Robins, w. ".
Frazer and w. S. Bodey. in the deed of
assignment of the Com. r. R. Bank of
Vicksburg, to them, and signed by them.
The Indiana case may be found published
in the Mississippian, Of Sept. 10, l845.
The friends of the Brscoe bill advocate
the repeal of the amendment to that bill
as it originally passed the lower House of
the Legislature in 1913, at the extra SEES
sion--which amendment was rejected By
the House, and afterwards tackled on IN the
Senate, Judge Guion proposing 1t, and
passed, when some four members OF the
lower House had gone home, on the last
day Of the session. The 9Th, 9Th. 10Th
and 18th sections of the law as 1t now
stands on the statute book, constitute the
amendment. The friends of the bill con-
tend that the amendment which provides
that the debtors of the banks shall not be
released after a judgment Of forfeiture
shall haze been obtained against The banks
for uiolations of their charters, by the e.
feet, and as legal consequence OF such
judgment Of forfeiture-and for the APP
pointment Of trustees to collect debts, &c.
is unconstitutional, as impairing the
OBLIGATIONS of the contracts made by the
debtors Nth the banks.
The law is, that so much of the exist
ing law as is applicable at the time OF maxi
ING contract, enters into it, and forms a
part of it, and the parties are in law pre-
sumed 10 know it, and to contract with
reference to the existing law. And, alsoI
that every person contracting with cor
polation is, by law, presumed to know the
law that applies to such corporation, and
TO contract with reference, and subject to
it. And we have seen by the well set
tied law Of the land existing at the date OF
the contracts made by individuals with the
banking corporations of this State, the
debts dae to and by banking corporation
become crtinguished by the judgment OIL
forfeiture. Every contract made with a
bank is made upon the condition imputed
by law, that if a judgment of forfeiture is
got against the bank before The contract is
IDaid or otherwise discharged, the same Is
/ hereby ertingmshed. "Epery creditor o.
corporation contracts arith reference tt
this contingency. Angel & Ames OF
i CORPORATIONS, l2S-9.-Peter's Sup. Cour
U. S. Rep. 28l, 237. The Constitution
of Mississippi and of the United States
provide that the legislature shall pass NJ
la,e impaming the obligation Of contracts
] Hence it is palpable that the amendmen
in declaring that bank debtors shall not b.
released after a judgmeat Of forfeiture
5 riolates the obligation Of the contracts O
: Individuals sDih the banks, making then
] unconditional contracts, ,0her By their ma
ture and legal effect, they are cond1t'ond
e and reviving debts which are legal,
discharged-and, therefore, 1t is uncon
: stitutional, null and void.
1 Now, for the legislature 10 enact the
: after Judgment of forfeiture against
q bank shall have been obtained, that th
: debtors shall not be discharged, is uneXarn
5 pied in the history of American Legislation
/ is to deny to the debtors the right and lay
d of their contracts, is special legislation il
violation Of our constitutions, State an
e Federal, in favor of bank officers, ban
o attorneys, trustees, and brokers, who ma,
r have purchased up the bank paper for
! mere song. Such a law clearly ImpairS
i, changes, alters and destroys the obligation
e OF all contracts with the banks. 1t tn
d banks had by the common law of the land
Y as it existed at the time of granting thel
e charters and the making of ali contract
It with them, the right to enforce the collec
S ton of their debts after Judgment of foI
Il fixture entered against them, the legisla
If tnre could not take that right away by sui
1t sequent legislation.
II If banks did not possess that right b
! the law, as ii existed when they were ere
: ated, and their contracts with individual
: were made. it was not and is not compC
>, tent for the legislature, by subsequer
J. enactment, to confer such right. 1t
y true that it has been decided that legi:
J. lature may waive forfeiture of the cha
d Ter of corporation, in some cases in tn
.el New York and Massachusetts reports, bl
i. no where has it been decided that such
waiver can be made to take effect after
$, judgment Of forfeiture has been o6taine'
r and the extinguishment of debts has take
8 effect, thereby to affect the rights an
. change the contracts of individual either
IS without their consent, by an act subs
< quent 20 the granting of the charter al
Z, the making of such contracts. Ii the /
le gislature can do this, it can pass law il
is pairing the obligation ofcontracts, thong
of prohibited by the constitutions Of our ow
D. State, and of the U. States, and make al
-. e / l. l. :.