Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1845-10-29


admitting that the debtors if released by
Judgment of forfeiture would be getting
something for nothing, what thanks do the
banks deserve, who all the time were
committing lraudl Their stockholders
did not give their issues credit and cur
rency! But that much slandered name
4" The State Of Mississippi'-the people
themselves. who gave the charters to the
banks, and authorized their issues to be
received in payment of public dues. Be
sides, many of them loaned the notes Of
other banks, foi trhich they nOtc hold the
notes of indiriduuIs to an immense amount
and the debtors, If discharged, after
judgment of forfeiture, are released by
the law of their contracts. 1t must, also,
be taken into consideration, that, of the
total number of bank debtors al this time,
not more than one-fourth or one-third Of
them are borrowers. Every borrower was
required, as is well known, TO give three
or four securities: Hence it may reason
ably be calculated that three-fourths, or
two-lhirds at least, Of the total number OF
bank debtors, are endorsers or sureiies.
Did these get any thing on the contracts
of their principals from the banks? And
when these endorsers and sureties are re-
leased and discharged by the law of their
contracts, and from all legal liability, by
due course of law, where is the moral obi
CATION attaching to them? Take the case
of an endorser on bill of exchange or
promissOry note: He simply puts his uame
Il l. oc 4bo h.
mon, mercantile law, requires that de-
mand of payment, refusal OF the drawee
and acceptorS to pay, protest or nonPay-
ment in due time, must be shown to have
been made and given, or the endOrser IS
released and discharged from liability; and
after an endorser is discharged for want
of these legal requisites being complied
with, did any man hear of his being con
sidered under any moral obligation 10 pay.
Just so the law enters into the contract o.!
the bank debtors, and when he is legally
discharged, he is morally discharged.
But some Of the opponents OF the mea-
sure contend that even after judgment
of forfeiture against bank-even If the
amendment were repealed, or uncOnsutu-
tional, the bank or its creditors could HE
bill in court of chancery or equity a
gainst the debtors, and obtain decree
against them for the amount of their re-
spective debts. This opinion receives
countenance from but few of the legal pro-
fessioh, and is palpably absurd to any le-
gal mind, not given to the vagaries Of le-
gal speculation. If this relief could be
obtained in court of equity, why was
there any necessity Of passing the amend
ment at all. Why is no such doctrine to
be found in any law book whateverl Why
are Kent, Blackstone, Coke, Comyn and
Story, silent on the subjectl Why DO
Kidd, Wilcox, and Ames, in their re.
ing of such doctrine? The latter. the
work of Angel and Ames, on corporations,
a new and comprehensive work, that, at.
Ter being approved, both by the bench
and bar of the United States, has passed
to second and improved edition, pub
Iished in lS43. and which the venerable
and learned Chan. Kent, TO whom it is
dedicated, in the chapter in the 9Th edi
ton of his commentaries on corporations
refers to containing an able and thorough
examination of every part of The learning
} appertaining 10 this head, and as being {
performance which deserves, and will re
celve the respect and patronage of the
profession. A new and enlarged editor
) of that treatise appeared in 1913; ana
the work is vastly improved, and admira
: bly, digested"-2 kent's CON-, 9th edition
} D. 315, note (d.) The only answer is
that such a doctrine exists only in tb'
} brain and imaglnations of mere VISIONARY
! theorists, and spectators, or few part
IAN lawyers. A court of equity set a
nought that law, and judgment of for
t fixture regularly obtained, when il is
, leading maxim in equity, that " equit
. follows law" A court of equity reliev
I set of baking corporations, who hav
] ffaudulently violated their charters, whel
r it is a maxim in equity, that Z" he who doe
I iniquity shall not have equity!" A couI
t of equity relieves swindling banks fror
Y the consequences of their Grimes, when
k is an established principle that suitors mus
$ come into that forum "with clean hands I!
i And the bank creditors could, only. i
J. that view, assert the right of their debtors
Y the bank corporations. Such an opinIo
s is almost too preposterous TO require al
:. gument for legal men. The condition {
$ forfeiture for violation of charter-th
= Judgment Of forfeiture and its consequer
= ces, were founded in the timehonored WI
s dom of the common law, and in wis
II and wholesome public policy, as saluiar
: restraint (the only one that could be d.
IS vised) upon faithless and fraudulent CO
d porations, TO deter them from violatIo
i and perversion of the privileges conlerre
!: IN them hv their che fters--iri induce the