Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1845-10-29
CARRoLLToN. WEDNESDAY,. locroBER %, IS


and all its debts-those due to the corpo-
ration or banks, as well as those due by
the bank or other corporation, would be to-
tally ertinguished--and these effects and
consequences of judgment of forfeiture
of charter, apply to banks in Mississippi.
See the following authorities:
Kent's Com Sd, 4th and 9th editions,
P. 307, note (b).-Angel 81 Ames on Cor
porations, I'd edition, p. 667 and notes Is
4 and 5).-State Bank vs.. the State of In
diana, lst Blockford's Rep. 267.-Robns
ct ais. vs. Embry ct ais. chancellor Buck
ner).-l SIN. & Mar. CHI Rep. 266-267,
and Mr.. G. S. Yerger's argument in same
case, p. 244, 255.--Judge Thacher, In his
opinion in the case of the Com. Bank of
Rodney vs.. the State OF Mississippi, Jan
term, lS45, OF our High Court of Errors
and Appeals Fox vs.. Horah, Judge Gas.
ton, IredeIl's Equity Rep. 35S.--Sixteen
whig members of the Legislature at the
extra session of l843, in their protest
against the Briscoe bill, as it passed the
House--see House Journal, PIP. 20l-2-3.
The Soutnron "a leading wing newspa-
PERI published at Jackson, of Aug. Goth,
1885, Argument of J. Tallmadge and
D. B. Ogden, in case of McLaren VS. Pen
nington, l Paige's c.. R. lO7, and the
Chancellor at p. lll.--Folger vs.. Chase,
Is Pick. R.-And T. E. Robins, w. w.
Frazer and w. S. Bodlcy. 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 Briscoe 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 ses-
sion--which amendment was rejected by
the House, and afterwards tackled on in the
Senate, Judge Guion proposing it, and
passed, when some four members of the
lower House had gone home, on the last
day of the session. The Sth, 9th. 10th
and 18th sections of the law as it 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 judgment of forfeiture
shall haze been obtained against the banks
for riolGtions of thar charters, By the eff.
feet, and as legal consequence of such
judgment Of foJeiture-and for the APP
pointment Of trustees to collect debts, &c.
is unconstitutional, as impGiring the
obligations Of the contracts made by 'he
debtors nth the banks.
The law is, that so much of the exist.
ing law as is applicable at the time of MAX
ing a contract, enters into it, and forms
part of it, and the parties are in law pre-
sumed 10 know it, and to contract with
reference to the existing law. And, also,
that every person contracting with cor
poration 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 we'll 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 due TO and by banking corporation
become ertinguished by the judgment oil
forfeiture. Every contract made with a
| bank is made upon the condition imputed
: by law, that if judgment of forfeiture is
, got against the bank before the contract is
paid or otherwise discharged, the same Is
/ hereby ertinguished. "Erery creditor OF
corporation contracts ,rih reference t.
5 this contingency. Angel & Ames OF
a Corporations, l28-9.-Peter's Sup. Cour
/ U. S. Rep. 28l, 2s7. The Constitution
! of Mississippi. and of the United State.
3 provide that the legislature shall pass M
Tar impairing the obligation of contracts
b Hence it is palpable that the amendmen
) in declaring that bank debtors shall not B.
: released after judgment Of forfeiture
5 rtoldtes the obligation Of the contracts 0
e indiUtduals Nth the banks, making the1
d unconditional contracts, ,chen By their ma
J. ture and legal effect, they are conditional
e and reviving debts which are legal
h discharged-and, therefore, it is uncon
! stitutional, null and void.
d Now, for the legislature 10 enact tia
J. after Judgment Of forfeiture against
= bank shall have been obtained, that tn
debtors shall not be discharged, is unexau
s pied in the history of American Legislation
!. is to deny to the debtors the right and la
4 of their contracts, is special Legislation
violation Of our constitutions, State an
. Federal, in favor OF bank officers, ban
n attorneys, trustees. and brokers, who ma
r have purchased up the bank paper for
!. mere song. Such law clearly impair
!. changes, alters and destroys the obligatio
: OF all contracts with The banks. II tn
j banks had by the common law of the LAM
: as it existed at the lime of granting the
: charters and the making of ali contrac
+ with them, the right 10 enforce the collie
! ton of their debts after a judgment Of 70
= fixture entered against them, the legisli
Z. .aao,,ld 40 tho that riUIlt away hy sul