The Yazoo City Whig. [volume] (Yazoo, Miss.) 1844-1851, 1846-02-13

il, and declares that be knows not how 10
frame bin Of indictment against whole
people. Tie cool aud sagaciOus sons Of
New England, tie impetuous and impulsivs
children Of the South, and the hardy and
adventurous men Of the West, have all per.
formed the same circuit Yet whenever
this point has been made, II has invariably /
been decided that The effort to save the
wreck foF the creditors was constitutional.
| In mary Of the States 1t has been acted on
and enforced BY the Courts, as an unques-
tiopabIe exercise Of legitimate power. The !
cases cited by the appellant in support OIL
his position, that these provisions are uncon.
stitutional, do not sustain him. The case
ia 2 Harrington ID, arose under statute
which was not passed, until two years after
the dissolution of che corporation. 1t as
sumed TO revive the corporation, after it had
expired by its own limitation, "with the
! same powers, privileges, and ammunities,
that had been granted to it by its original
} charters" The decision was that these
words were not intended by the Legislature
to revive the debts which had been exiting
uished two years before, and that it was un.
E necessary TO decide what would have been
!, the effect, If the debts due to the corpora.
a tfon had been in express terms revived
!. Neither is it necessary for us to decide such
e point. The case Of the State Bank vs.. the
!. State Blackford Indiana Rep. is liable 10
e the same remarks. The Court decides that
e the act under which the proceedings took
il Eplace, was not intended to change the COM
e mon law rule in regard TO the consequences
!. of forfeiture. The debts due the Bank
e were considered upon the common law Prin
le ciples unaffected by the act. and therefore
Il subject to extinguishment by a dissolution
% of the corporation.
" The same is true in regard TO the Nortl
le Cayolina decision. 1t was holden that thu
n. facts did not bring the case within the stat
e. ute Of the State, providing that upon a judy
It. ment Of forfeiture or dissolution against
p. corporation, the consequence shall not B
n> to extiHgaish debts due to or from 1t, 81
lty that 1ecaiger should be appointed 10 cOlleC
Ity and pay them over. The Court decide
he that The act did not embrace cofporatio
a whose existence was terminated By the e
Use piratiOn Of its charter tom lapse of I'm
w, and therefore applied to the common Ia
es, principle. There seemed TO be no doub
lie. by the Court or the counsel, that IL the ca.
for had come within the act, The debt wou
of not have been extinguished. Fox vs.. Hols
to IRE. Eq. Cases 362. Thus none Of the,
on> cases are like the present. In Ohio sim
son lar law has been acted on as constitutions
th. 10 Ohio Rep. go. In New York the pr
10 vision has been held constitutional. Bar
roe Columbia VS. Atty Gen. Wind. 600. ]
lcr. the Maryla land act of 1918, the 9Th Sec. a
lrd> thorizes upon given state of f1cts, a jud
ion lnlent Of Forfeiture. The 9th Sec. dreC
by that the Court giving the judgment Of f
ling fixture shall appoint commissioners to set
,52. and close the concerns of the Bank. IT
3 is act has not only been recognized as cons
, in tutfonal BY the Supreme Court Of that Sta
but they say in one Of their decisions,
me. had been decided to be constitutional
each the Supreme Court Of the United Stat
hank Bank Of Maryland vs.. Ruff. Gill & 10
the 4ss.
hole Let US now turn to cases which have b
GA decided in our own Cou,t. The first
tract will notice is, the Bank Of Miss. VS.. Ja'
they Wrenn, s. & Mar. 79l. The orig
Incl. charter was by its terms to have expired
nj 40 the last day Of Dec. lsS4.--'rhree sew
Saw acts we're passed giving further time f
was 10 collect is debts, until Jan. 1914. On
ise to It's suits depended in this court for a
es not years. Its rights 10 prolonged exist
az res for this qualified purpose, were never q
! the tioned ia this Court, and the suit finally
.onae. led BY the expiration Of the last act o.
were subject in 1874. This case proves not
i now except thai neither the cOult nor the 6
ised sci seem eVei e nave supposed 'nss
enabling acts were unconstitutional.
,s.Hpext IS the case 81 Payne q 81. y.
I.ances Y. 4 lufiy. S. y NJ. GIL. That
I,snks. involved the conssisuti ona.ity Of Ia
.css 81 passed ID 1910. which fOrbids the q
Ihss of ~ any Bank, e ans bOed' bill note @
Of The evidence of debt. After most sial
urs has argument The law was sustained. cit
4 have il certainly took away from The Bank
81 sbsir she incidental powers. which i BID 8
,precias and excerciaed--that Of negotiating