The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1849-07-23
Law Intelligence.

SUPREME CoURr y observation-disclosures aith D.,
The Easto'' Bank - his decided in favo Of
the commonwealth in very able ana elaborate
by Judge Bell The claim Of the commonwealth was
for an increase OF tax dividends for the years 1885
1886 and lo31-th bank having regularly paid eight
per cent, the amount required he paid under tho
act chartering the bank-Act of 25th March. 1924.
whether the act Of LIST pr 1885 Increasing this tax
on bank dividends not Institutional rs TO
banks previously chartered and whose charters had
not then expired under rate OF taxation less than
that paid by the act OF 1st April ls35or in other
words, whether the Legislature possessed the
increase the rate OF taxation beyond that liked la the
charter. The question rendered still more im por-
tant rs the principle applied some fifteen or more
banks that had paid into the State trea sury for Ia
dividends due period Of more than twelve years
about 100000 under protest II the decision had
been adverse TO the opinion Of the accounting officers
OF the common wealth, those banks would doubtless
have made an effort to back tho amount paid
by them Hence the Importance of the decision, "a
well as settling very important question affecting the
revenue p nnsyiranian, JaIy IL.
IssoLvENr LAw-IMPoRrANr DEcIsroy-SUPRrME JU-
pIcIAL CouRr OF MAssAcHUsErTs Nicholas II Brig
ham Us. Frederick a Henderson This action Of
assumpsit by the payeeof bill of exchange against
the acceptor The bill drawn upon the defendant
by third person in favor Of the plaintiff payable at
any bank in Boston, All the parties at the tune the
bill drawn and accepted lived in Mxssac husetts
The defendant afterwards obtained his discharge
under the iDsolvent laws of Massachusetts,. The
plaintiff, before the defendant became insolvent,
removed to Louisiana. 1t having been his Intention to
do so at the date of the draft and he resided there
the time Of the proceedings in insolvency Under the
Instructions Of the Court the jury returned verdict
tne the defendant took to
the ruling Of the Court
Judge Metcaif delivered the opinion of the Court.
He said the Court had bestwed great deal Of labor in
examining this case part of which. they thought,
ought to have been performed by ths counsel But the
Court had received much assistance from the elaborate
written arguments which had been furnished in no
ther case involving the same points The statute OF
1855 for the relief If nsolv.ut debtors pro-
vded for the granting Of dschsrg. from debts founded
on any contract made by the debtor after ths act
should go into operation made within this Common
wealth, or 70 be performed within the same 4" rhe
debt for which the present SUIT brought came
within this description The question then arose,
whether II was constitutional grant discharge from
debts due to no resided Com wealth
at the time the d. bt was contracted but who
70 another State before the proceedings in
The previous intention to remove considered by
the tourt rs entirely immat.rial and laid OF
the case IL had been held that debts due persons
living in another State could not be
discharged under State insovent law but the precise
question involved In the hal before
been raised There being then, Judicial decision to
control the effect Of the statute in this respect aud the
Court p.rceisiug principle initiating against It,
they must decide that the discharge was vaud The
defendants exceptions we're therefore sustaincdBo,
fon Josl nal JAIN 12