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

alty--and shows by the very torce 81 The
term, that IL was the object 81 tae IA -
imposing the eondigion anS The eonseS1sa-
ees Of its breach, "a provide a PasisA-
ment for the eorporations fsr violating
their charter. COmyn in has digest. tu-
tie franchises. Corporations. G. 81 vol- !.
p. 500, calls violation Of charter. 3
breach Of trssf, perrersioa Of tie es1 81 -
grant, and EfisderscaROr.
These opponents, not ooly eooten3. tAai
court Of equity e1n, after ladgment Il
forfeiture, enforce the eolieciloa q debts
that were due the eOFPoratioa before for-
fixture, bat that the debts are ooly susS-
pended by the judgment Of forfeiture. thar
totally extinguisAsd, the hnguage q the
law writers means suspended, and saat the
real estate reverts, the PeFsoaaI proSerty
IS forfeited 10 tie State. and the debts ex-
tinguIshed, only al law for want Of sozne *
gal person in existence TO bod and take
the bank being an aEtiSciaL legal pei
son, and after a judgment Of forfeiture, e.
Willy dead. But If this were nc reasoa.
what sense would there Be IN The Avs
providing that q Judgment q forfeiture
might be recovered against 4 banker or
other corporation for misuse CT ah1se 81
ITS charter. The plain meaning aa3 I'M
port Of these terms, and this hnguxe Ell
the law, is too pointed sad palpable b se
misunderstood, or 70 admit Of such ooa-
clusion: and If 4 court q ehancery could
enforce a collection o. the debts. the iaw
would be dead letter, and nulii;y. WAY
is the personal property said 10 se tss-
feiied to the Sgatel When 4 uian dies
without leaving an heir, or one capable Of
inheriting, his property : not sas1 10 ee
forfeited to the State, bat 10 sscksas = The
State The word eseAeGs meanS. - fall
TO. An escheat * 4 mere Species o. X
version I'd ThomaS C0kc. Liulstaa. ,
ISIS, note (d.) For the dIs.inrtioa BE-
tween the words forfeiture and sS-hsas-
see Jacobs Law Diet. ?. $50 Why are
the debts said to lie tatlliy s-fsz-<zszis2f
for debts shieh the law declares assEiiy
er:iagHisA, d, 70 Dc revived and s1.srCed
in equity, would Be m0ckeFy IA isst,ce.
The authorities cited ~ the advocates
of this m0st unreasonable doctrine. @ 1T
sustain them They can En3 NJ auEha-i-
" for their peculiar views l. IS a6mi,sei
that the capital . stock ard ether property
Of private Corporations Is teemsl 4 STesc
fund for the payne3t Of the dsbss a tAe
/ corporation. 50 that the cre3,Ors have
a lien, or right Of priority Of payment en-
IT. IN preferences 70 Gzy q az ssock&ollers
/ Ia tie corpOr0tiOa RS SAYS IaSge 80
~, in , StO. Equity, % edilon. Pages
4SS-9-which IS the authority rellet -
/ by them, together With some q ssiH iess
force. But mark the language Ct Sssv
i in the same sentence. P-gfsrssre % 49,
/ of the stockholders Of tis earPorzasz-T
But does any authority say, that e-elsscrs
of a banking eorporaiiOa have lea.
against the original owners of TIE rsal
Il estate, in preference % the Sates' MA. q
forfeiture, or, as against debs0rs aftex a
judgment Of forfeiture, whereby their 6ebss
have become totally ex1nguishsdl No,
not one.
I Far fetched arguments from Al assumed
analogy and fine spun disquisisioos, ners
visionary speculatiOaz OF The braln. 81
not avail against reason. and PLAZA. pSsi-
tive and express law. founded In pas,le
policy. Authorities have been msssaossS
and perverted, bat in vain. The case q
Mumma vs.. the Potomac Company, n :
Porter's Rep, p PSI, s relied On. sAsu
! that, after a judgment OF Forfeiture o
charter, the obligation q the contracts .
: debts due by such corporation, stili s1r
yive. That was a case Of voluntary
, dissolution of the Cooperation, AID *
; fore such dissolution there vas an sxp-ss,
: provision made BY law in that case, VII
: the consent of the e0rporatico, f0r -
{ payment of debts due by il, and It 5 =
: stated in the opinion Of the court
The question. hOweEeF. Is belIevsd ID d
? put to rest by Judge Sso<y, in the "a -
3 lume Of his Treaties On Eqaity, n Ia
= chapter on penalties Of forfeitures, page.
q 555-6-who says, section l,Sa5: L I
5 on grounds somewhat similar. aided as.
I by considerations Of public policy, and ~
n necessity Of prompt performances. IN o.
I der to accomplish public or corporate %
t jects, that courts Of equity. IN eases 9
. the noncompliance BY ssockholdsrS vl1
q the payment Of their instalmenss ef stnck
J, at the time prescribed, by which he -
n fixture Of their shares i incurred un8e
: the bye-laws of the Institution, have retaz
# ed to interfere, BY granting relief agalns
e such forfeiture. The same rule. = Zoe N
+ same reasons, applied 10 sabsenPtions
, government loans, where The shares c
g the stock are agreed to be forfeited D. u
y want Of a punctual comPliahse with a
: terms Of the loan. a. to the time, nod
+ and place Of paymsntn-l3 Nesey 80
n 434, section 1926 So where any Pen2
dEty or forfeiture is imposed BY statute u
u bon the doing or omission Of q certain &C