Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1856-07-18
The Bank of Fayetteville Case---SmaIl Notes Pro
hIbIted.

Balance, IN equity, from Hyde.
The Bank Fayetteville Case---sman Notes Pro-
hibIted.
1t will be seen, that among the Decisions of the
Supreme Court of North Carolina the three cases
made up from the Superior Court of this county, the
State the Bank of Fayetteville, the State u.s. W.
g. Matthews, Teller, and the State vs. Alex'r Me-
Pherson, Clerk, of said Bank The Judgment in the
two last cases is affirmed against the defendants In
the first named case, the judgment is nOminaHy for
the Bank but we learn that it is only the
ground that an Indictment not the proper pro-
ceedng but that the case should have originated by
an g Information instead of Indictment
We further learn that all the points heretofore dis
cussd in the public p1ints and otherwise are decided
that in 184S, when the Bank was chared, there was
no general law in existence prohibiting the issue of
small bank notes. And that under lis charter the
bank had right to issue small notes, up to the 1st
day of January, 1856, when the new Revised Code
went into operation.
But the decision is against the issue of any such
notes by The bank after the lst of January 1856, up
on point never before moOed, not even in the ar
gument of the Attorney General against the Bank
1t is this That the Legislature in its sovereign pow
regulate the currency, has the right prescribe
what kind of bank notes may be issued That when
ii shall have exercised that right in any bank char
ter, 1t cannot revoke or alter It's decision, for has
then passed into the nature of a contract with the
bank, wh lch must not be violated But in the case
of the bank of Fayetteville, the charter was silent on
that point,-the right not exercised the failure
eAcFCSe IL ulu not uHlnlSn rlSnl TO
do so at any future time And thus the law of Jan'y
l, 1856, forbidding any bank not expressly authorized
to issue less than So notes. is constitutional, infrng-
ing nc contract with the bank
The is different with all the other banks in
the State the Legislature exhausted it's power on
that point when it prescribed in their charters the
kind of notes they might issue, viz: $3's and up
wards.
We learn further that this decision is in accord
ance with two very recent decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States, in similar which
went to that tribunal from the Supreme Court of
Ohio,-the opinion of the Court being pronounced
by Chief Justice fancy.
We are authorized to say that the bank will not
hereafter pay out any note under So. OF course it
will redeem any of its notes. large SMALL as usual
on their presentation. But we may be allowed to
express hope that the public, to whom these
small notes are incalcuable convenience, will not
pay them into bank, either that hank or any other
for they cannot then be re-issued. They will neces.
sarily become scarce but let have the benefit of
them as long possible We are informed by le-
gal gentleman who has read the opinion of the
Court that 1t extends only notes issued since the
1st of January, 1856, the Court not being at liberty
to decide as to the legality of the continued Crcua-
ton of notes issued previous to that time, and in
the hands of individuals. That point was not pre-
sented for decision. 1t is still question, therefore,
whether individuals, in whose hands such notes now
are, have not right still to circulate them. They
were lawful when issueed, and the opinion of the
Court only restraints III Bank itsef-Fay. Observer.