The Yazoo Democrat. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1845-10-15

interpretations. The word forfeiture Wig
nifes, amulct, fine, a pain, penalty
and shows by the very force OF the term
that il was the object Of the law in imPos
inc the condition and the consequences o.
its breach 10 provide punishment for the
corporations for violating their charters
COmyn in his Digest title franchises, cor
poraiions G 81 Vol. 4, p. 500, calls a VI
oIation Of charter breach Of trsGst, PerUer-
sion of tie ends Of its grants, and INSIDE
gaeanOr. These opponents not only contend
that court Of Equity can after judgement
of forfeiture enforce the collection Of debts
that were due to the corporation before for
fixture, but that, the debts are only SusPen-
ded by the judgment of forfeiture that
tOtdlly ertinguiShed, the Language OF the
law writers means suspended, and that the
Real Estate reverts, the Personal property
is forfeited to the State, and the debts extin-
guished, only at lar for the rant Of some
legal person to hold and tGke-the bank be-
inc an artificial legal person, and after a
judgment of forfeiture, ciyilly dead. But il
this were the reason, what sense would
there be the laws providing that Judgment
Of forfeiture might be recovered against a
bank or other corporation for a misuse or
abuse of its charter? The plain meaning
and import Of these terms and this language
Of the law is too pointed and palpable to be
misunderstood, or to admit Of such a con-
clusion and if a court Of chancery could
enforce the collection of the debts, the law
would be dead letter, and a nullity.-
Why is the personal property said to be for
feited to the State? When a man dies
without leaving any heirs, or one legally
capable Of entrusting, his property is not
said to be forfeited to the State, but to eS-
cheat to the State. The word escheGt means
to fall to, and an escheat is a mere species
of reversion, 2nd Thos. Coke Lit. p. 1873, |
note (B.) For the distinction between the
words forfeiture and escheat see Jacobs |
Law Dictionary p. 43O. Why are the
debts said to be totally extinguished? For
debts which the law declares totally extin.
guished, to be revived and enforced in
Equity would be mockery of justice.
The authorities cited by the advocates Of
this most unreasonable doctrine do not sus.
tain them. They can find no authority for
their peculiar views. 1t is admitted that
the capital stock and other property ofpri.
vate corporations is deemed trust fund for
the payment of the debts Of the corpora
ton, so that the creditors have a lien or
right of priority of payment on il, in pref
erence to any of the stockholders IN the cor
pOratiOn "-as says Judge Story in second
StOry's Equity, 2nd edition, p. 499, which
is the authority relied on by them together
with some of still less force. But mark the
language Of Story in the same sentence,
in reference "a any of The stockholders in
he corporation. But does any authority
say, that creditors Of banking corporation
have lien as against the original owners |
Of the Real Estate, in preference to the
States right Of forfeiture, or as against
debtors after a Judgment Offorfeiture, where.
by their debts have become totally ertin.
guished. No not one. Far.fetched argu.
nents from an assumed analogy and fine |
pun dispositions, mere visionary specula- |
ions Of the brain, will not avail against
'easOn, and plain, positive and express lGiO
Ounded in public policy. Authorities have
)een misquOted and perverted but in vain.
The case of Mumma VS. the Potomac Con.
Dany in 8 Peters reports, p. 2eI, is relied
On-tO show that after judgment Of Eorfei.
lure of charter, the obligation Of the con-
tracts Of the debts due by such corporation
still survive. That was a case Of vOIunta.
ry dissolution Of partnership, and before
such dissolution there was an express pro.
vision made by law in that case with the
consent of the corporation for the payment
Of the debts due by it--and il so stated IN
The opinion Of the court. The question how.
ever is believed to be put 70 rest entirely by
Judge Story in the 2nd vol. Of his treatise
on Equity, in his chapters on Penalties and
555, 556-who say, sec.
lion 1925. sit is upon grounds somewhat
similar, aided also by considerations Of pub.
lie policy, and the necessity Of prompt
performance in order TO accomplish public
or corporate objects that courts Of Equity,
in cases Of the Noncompliance by stock.
holders with the terms Of payment Of their
instalments of stock, at the time Prescri-
bed, by which forfeiture Of their shares
is increased under the bye-laws Of the in.
have refused to interfere bygran-
ting relief against such forfeiture. The
same rule, as for the same reason, applied
TO cases Of subscription to government loans,
where the shares Of the stock are agreed
to be forfeited by the want Of a punctual
compliance with the terms Of the loan, as
to the time, mode and place Of payment
Is Mes. P. 433, 434-Section 1885,
/" When any penalty or forfeiture is imposed
by statute upon the doing or omission Of q