Mississippi Democrat. (Carrollton, Miss.) 1844-18??, 1845-11-03
NO. AZ.

DINER corporation for misuse or abuse of
lis charter. The plain meaning and i'm.
port OF these terms, and this anRuge Of
tho law, is too pointed and pnlpnble 10 DO
misunderstood, or TO admit Of such a con-
clusion and if court OF chnncery could
enforce collection Of; tho debts, the law
would be dead letter, and nuIity. Why
IS The personal property said TO DO for
leIed to tho Statel When man dies
without leaving an heir, or one capable OF
Einherlting, his property is not said TO be
forfeited 10 the Stnte, but 70 sachedi to the
State. The word eschcdt means, 10 fall
TO. An oschcat is mere species of re-
version I'D Thomas Coke, Iittioton, y.
lsS, note (d,) For the distinction be-
tween tho words forfeiture and cscheat--
see Jacobs Law Dict, p, 430 Why are
tho debts said to be totally crfinguishcdp
flor debts which the law declares totally
ertngatsh d, to be revived and enforced
in equity, would BIO mockcry in Justice.
The authorities cited by the advocates
of this most unreasonable doctrine, do not
sustain them. They can find no auihori.
~ for their peculiar views. Ii is admitted
that the capital stock and other property
Of private corporations is deemed a trust
fund for the paymedt OF the debts Of The
corporation, SO that the creditors have
a Hen, or right Of priority Of payment on
II, IN preference 10 any Of Me stockholders
IN ttc corpordtionp'-as says Judge Sto-
ry, in 2 Slo. Equity, I'd edition, pages
49S-9--whch is tho authority relied on
by them, together with some Of still less
force. But mark the language Of Story
in the same sentence, "prcfcrence 10 any
Of the stockholders Of The corporatioaln
But does any authority say, that creditors
Of n banking corporation have lien,
against the original owners OF the real
estate, in preference to the States right Of
forfeiture, or, as against dobtors afern
Judgment Of forfeiture, whereby their debts
nave become extiugaishedi No, not one.
Far fetched arguments from an assumed
analogy ana fine spun disquislions, mere
'isonary speculaIious Of tho brain, will
lot avail against reason, and plain, posi-
i've and express law, founded in public
policy. Authorities have been misquoicd
md perverted, but in vain. The Gaze Of
Mumma vs.. the Potomac Company, in s
'orier's Rep, p. 29l, is relied on, show
hat, after Judgment OF forfeiture Of
harier, the obligation Of the contracts Of
ebis duo by such corporation, still sur
i've. That was case Of voluntary
issoldlion Of the corporation, and be-
ne such dissolution there was an express
revision made by law ia that case, with
10 consent Of tho corporation, for tho
ayment Of debts due by il, and il is SO
atcd in the opinion Of the court.
The question, however, isbcIicyod 10 DO
Ut to rest by Judge Story, in the Cd 70.
me Of his Treaties on Equity, in bis
napier on penalties OF forfeitures, pages
)5-8--who says, section 1925: "Iti
| grounds somewhat similar, aided also
, considerations of public policy, and tho
'cessity of prompt performance, III or
II to accomplish public or corporate OBJ
cts, that courts Of equity, il cases Of
0 noncompliance by stockholdcrs with
0 payment Of their instalmeats Of stock,
tho time prescribed, by which the for
ture Of their shares Is incurred under
. byc,laws Of the institution, have refus-
tolntcrlerc, by granting relief against
Oh Forfeiture. The same rule, is for Tho
me reasons, applied 10 subscriptions 10
yernmcnt loans, where tho shares Of
stock are agreed 10 be forfeited b. Tho
mt Of punctnal compliance with tho
ms Of the loan, as to the time, mode.
q place Of paymenI''---13 vesey 433.
4, section 1926 -" where any penal.
or forfeiture Is imposed by statute IN.
the doing Or omission Of certain ACT.
re courts Of equity will not interfere.
mitigate the peualiy or forfeiture, il in
red, for il would DO in contraycnIion ~
legislative will" The same principle
(perhaps not uniyersallyl 40.
ID to cases Of forfeiture, founded anon.
customs Of MINORS and iic general
toms Of certain kinds Of estates, such
copy-hold; for in all these cases. the
eIture is treated az properly founded
N some positive law, or some customn.
regulations, which had their origin In
10 public policy, and ought 10 BE- en-
ed for The general benefit.
% the law providing forfeiture for
alton Of corporate charters, and No
sequences Of such forfeiture, had M
10 in sound public policy, and il opoht
&c enforced for the general benefit.
has been decided--see State Bank ~
ANA vs.. The State, BIackfofd'. Rem
|, and Angel and Arnes on corporations,
20, that the clause il the State corsti.
IN which provides that "no persons
'er'y shall be taken or applied 10 pub.
'so Without tho consent 81 Ire legtsa.
!, and without inst Communicates, 1,,;