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

ilent lor inc corporations Tor violating
: their charter, Comyn in his digest, (ii
tie franchises, corporations, g. 81 vol. 4
P. 500, calls a violation Of charter, Z
breach Of trustpCrrerSioa of The end Of IL,
grant, and a 1iiSdemedaor.
These opponents, not only contend, tha
court of equity can, after judgment o
! forfeiture, enforce the collection Of debt,
that were due tho corporation before for.
ieiiure, but that the debts are only sus.
pended by the judgment of forfeiture, that
totally exlinguished, the language Of the
law writers means suspended, and that the
real estate reyerts, the personal property
is forfeited TO tie State, and the debts ex-
tlnguished, only at law for want Of some To-
gal person in existence TO hold and take
tho bank being an artificial, legal por.
son, and after Judgment of forfeiture, ei.
Willy doad. But if this were tho reason,
what sense would tboro be in the laws
providing that a judgment of forfeiture
might DO recovered against a banker or
other corporation for misuse or abuse of
lis charter. The plain meaning and i'm.
port of these terms, and this Language of
the law, is too pointed and palpabe 10 be
misunderstood, or to admit of such con.
clusion: aud if court OF chancery could
enforce a collection OF tho debts, The law
would be dead letter, and nuIliiy Why
is tho personal property said to DO for.
leited to the State9 When man dies
without leaving an heir, or one capable Of
nheritng, his property is not said to be
forfeited 10 the State, but to escheat to the
Stale. The word eschcat means. TO fall
TO. An escheat is a mere species Of re-
version:-2d Thomas Coke, Linleton, D.
lsS, note (d.) For the distinction be.
tween the words forfeiture and eschea--
see jacobs Law Diet, p, 400 Why are
the debts said to be totally crtiaguished2
for debts which the law declares totally
ertiaguishtd, to be revived and enforced
in equity, would be mockery in justice,
The authorities cted by The advocates
of this most unreasonable doctrine, do not
sustain them. They can find no auihor-
ly for their peculiar views. 1t Is admitted
that the capital stock and other property
of private corporations is deemed trust
fund for the paymedt Of tho debts Of the
corporation, so that The creditors have
a Hen, or right of priority OF payment on
i, IN preference 10 any ofM stockholders
in The corporation !"-ns says Judge Sto.
ry, in 2 Sto. Equity, ID edition, pages
408 o--which is the authority relied on
by them, together with some Of still less
force. But mark the language Of Story
10 the same sentence, "pref ference 10 any
Of the stockholders of The comparatively
But does any authority say, that creditors
Of banking corporation have a lien,
against the original owners Of the real
estate, in preference to the States right Of
forfeiture, or, as against debtors after
Judgment Of forfeiture, whereby their debts
nave become totally exlnguishedl No,
not one.
Far fetched arguments from an assumed
analogy and fide spun dispositions, mere
'isonary speculations Of the brain, will
iot avail against reason, and plain, posi-
i've and express law, founded in public
,olicy. Authorities have been misquotcd
md perverted, but in vain. The case oil
Mumma vs.. the Potomac Company, ia s
'orter's Rep, p. 29l, is relied on, show
hat, after n judgment Of forfeiture Of [
'harter, the obligation Of The contracts OF (
lebis due by such corporation, sill sur {
i've. That was case Of voluntary 1
dissolution Of the corporation, and be-
ofe such dissolution there wns an express
jroyision made by law in that case, with
he consent Of the corporation, for the I
Iayment of debts due by il, and il ID SO /
tated in the opinion Of the court.
The question, however, is believed 10 be I
ut to rest by Judge Story, in tho I'd 70. n
ume Of his Treaties on Equity, in his c
HAPPIER on penalties Of forfcitures, pages '
'55-6--who says, section 1925: "itis d
N grounds somewhat similar, aided also t
y considerations Of public policy, and the D
ecessity Of prompt performance, in or. c
Ter to accomplish public or corporate Oh. I,
ects, that courts Of equity, in cases Of
he noncompliance by stockholders with I
he payment Of their insialments Of stock. {
t tho time prescribed, by which the for {
eiture Of their shares IS incurred under /
he bye.laws Of the institution, have refis. c
d 10 interfere, by granting relief against 1
uch forfeiture. The same rule, is for The +
anne REASONS, applied 10 subscriptions 10
government loaus, where the shares oil +
he stock are agreed TO be forfeited BIZ the O
want Of puncinal compliance with the d
,,r,.es, ,.f the Iaan a0 IL tt.at..... ...... / I.