New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-06-15

rsn.sctio1, vi; y the tvey q he era onc Upon The
II Wis; ;hes... and Vis; vas the effect q TIE att Of
the Bank - aEeut Iowa to he tue Of the pe-eni0n Of
III Wis, tie operation Of tie decon Of the Board Of
ii. der n r. dslert ,h., John pi.sei .-
slle with I'm nor s h@ authority dess;ed % ~. Gov
10y the ssut u hahEan IL equally eraI tat the
Cd Ph.Iir BsIk all D.. tan. in ee; o,tion haa Pea,
te PleHiI Bal he'd before the S5h Of Febrlary; -
tie plaintiffs prove this tne Bank. but leave. it
admitted to Deased Tie Por Of - Goveru9F AID q
The purpose obtaining money and probably 20 aise by
Iedse ana va. mid M Ase, ,aa' "a p 10,
,ats that the bonds Zone uion) were placed IN Deaef
hsnds 70 be odd and IL proceeds 70 be paid ove 70 the Ie
uIeT Of h Stse for Tho purposes Aforesaid Tbs u impey
admitted By he answer or II ate that tie Ban acted on the
II de-, not appear that Dased had received any Of
90 &c nSpsd and pT.,ea ber tia. tsT Ioha
Notion H. va. The csi agent the State aud New
York with al sgency committed 70 h = attend = .e
fore poiesd He brought with him letter marked con6dea
tel from Governor Mason TO John DeAheld dated gan Of
February 1863 and ct forth IN the compliant i IS f'9S
"DE.R srs: In conversation with Nj Norton
iDg before his departure h. suggested thai he would Ike
in addition 600 due my draft to command
additional funds purchase and redeem Michigan notes your
msrke Mr. Norton part'cus personal friend Of mine
and 1. the a agent Of the State ard Cashier Of the State De
The bonds your possession, transfer Nj Norton $500
!o) TAX ns h. eeiaeaig o. Opt iI2n Joln S
Ut the State DePs, Bank This letter inco'ed TO Mr. Nor
Norton ten ntso.sted AZ Arrangement with Deaed under
%h two dTs' Wf.e fyE e 5 the aid nA'1'
PHESIx BANK. NEw.YoRS, March 10, l'5s.
-. MORTON. esq. C,,hr
Dear Sir. Please receive herein my daf on the Farmers
and Mechanics Bank OF Detroit ~
Do Bank Of River Raisu, Mour, 1900
"Total.......................... $500
On account Of asae nv thu Bank Michigan Bonds
deposited with John Dclshcld. ESQ, PFcsid" ni
Resp ctully your =.
Received T.a5 Bank III, aSoT g. GfptN C'e'
signed JoHs NqSTos, il; ca'hisrr
q opinion that the attempt appropriate the iund in pei
:fed'. tsud. TO the Ieha.e q Me.aR nos IN the nsse
ing in this eaceI Of Pos 5 ,5 n" ceB5 ron e1 s9ns
9ue none These notes, assume were notes OF Banks OF
II such an appropriation could have been supported
II have been literally executed prescribed In the letter
Funds available effect the redemption Of the notes u. have
have bcn transmitted 70 the Bank Of Michigan, when credit
uoiy RENTED BY Dsded In hi. view norton aud Deia
he and Ogden neglected to observe and in effect violated the
But letter fairly admit. construction
fed a5 to Soh S tho pioe GO Dot Of
bonds IL his possession ard cl.raon that the certificate Of
deposit Of such funds. signed by Norton cashier shall be-
discharge De.feld 1t may also be successfully arsed that
s[d 9h on thu G os aF o,rr s ay n bc
sane sne The case then would have ben that the state
pdscc and tie would have It's BY credit
It the deposit bank But is in proof th. the PhenI irt
pears iLst June 1853 D-sfed delivered to Romeyn BY Ma
.on dt oil the bonds aich had been raE'med to MIN a.
could debt binding upon tine Stsos
Snfi drt " S.r Sosei a 70 o9r men bn T '
Tie theory THE defendants is that Delahed agent OF the
bond, But the permitted the bonds remain with lin,
and he parted with them and must be inferred .aIi N. s
heiby Dclahed. aud in any way disposed o.
SO in tact the State has paid or is liable TO pay al II con-
traced fo all IT engaged the public faith to pay aud is 10 be
held liable for t64oO more 4 urged that The Bans s.ye
bonds were surrcrd the would pay the advance
Suppose this made fully hy competent evidence How
power bind the State by contract beyond aud indePeni
en Of the bonds? Who was empowered to pledge 10 pay
of any money advanced 10 one. evcn OF t own
official sstuts? it is to be noticed dealing with the
spst any equity arising from OF the Bank d
Iecy taken by clearly epp,d for tin benefit and use Of the
The letter memorandum Of Ogden Of the 18th Of Noyember
I!S7 .ap'--, that tl thelz Pen. ned ea ga 81 P a.
1s fact Is the highest Impotence. II admits that the &C.
rury was the bonds admits that the President Of the
Ban held bonds FIR whom clearly for the bank o
w. Ii i The ST. be agreed 10 BE- responsible T. pa.
from It's control How could the principal b. bound by az al
vance to an aseut iwhe thgt such pne,rt Ia. cone
ton Of opinion OF Justice IIede IN the case Of Chm
tet the Of debts from State are OF thee c1''e1 En-
Of with the IL gaure second Of contract with
sTaIty expressly authorized by IT. and thiLd, IN
the Executive without special authority he observes IN
Fnalend. The Crown there has very hEa pcosa
tives instances is Kind Of trustee Tor me pao IN
and the only authority which can be- sued in any
behalf Of the kngdou in Court OF Justice Gov
amor of state il mere Executive officer his general
thry limited By the Contribution Of the state IN no nnd
shilling th public money except he is authorized under
the Constitution or by paric law HAVING no aunoIy 70
represent tie sovereignty Of the STATE 50 as To- bud N auy
naIIfI to its prejudice, ues 'pfG3 AZ az
PERIL and ale bound to see that lie has sI 1 Any
he makes take the consequence OF their o ind
ss TIE State at The Executions Of Butte. Ohio Rep cog
Desf, ID AIT Tho state Of Illinois, Hill Rep t9 IL
- fIa aYl.
thori'd was 1Lat created by Ros'e,'oI Of ne 'ona 10Y
the loan The n,S Sont''i Latitude could Only hat Rc
Bspk hould be paid without the bonds Where did Mason
that Notion could no, bd the State to the Bank upon any I'm
executory contract entered into by Mason o norton could
have bonO the State the question might be different IL 1t
had ben proven the State had received aud used the money
q The Bank Aooye all under 'qeH 'i IN +, a,t rue
Now here met with the inconestals fact that
The State Of Michigan never received IN Tact on. collar Of I
fund. in questio va there one dollar ee'G-y aPP,opi
Stf a., PTSSt Of Lat BpR had otic Of Il. being out
standing and sd oud be paid IN currency remsined It
i, to be presumed in Noons haud the credit to the Pine
nix Eauk upon the books Of the Benz Of tn Rive
Ran until the arTans,reut with S,ewa, in is4o A. to the
drai, on Farmers AID Mechanics Bank Tor $40, aP
Mfissn State Hank That the depo. Bank Of the
State This money wa' srned to the credit S me fsfn
tydcaec tlst sdqsi q went 70 the Use Of tn
credit Of the PheuiI Bark until tie arrangement with
Stew art have Therefore. without hesitation TO
cation othe Bank III the original Transaction There va; no
legal sty liked upon IT, and there no equitable csm
GRATED fer then received By it, applied T. It, Use
And ih Er'e. the inquiry whether the State did becone
bound BY acts II it, It's authorized agents pof 70
tie GW ard This the second bead Of consideration
very pressing argument has been made that Norton re
ceiyed these crafts March 1855 and could have recovered
tie the Bank Of the River Rsisin ara
ala and appd the fhen Bank Of the fact That ~
hsd dor That he bound 10 have pesrnied the
GRAFT payment. have regularly protested . and
given notice II Mt strictly bound 70 this rule q mercantile
law such gross .lcc existed here raised ipu-
tqu sg.us: him ard ali tic State Of Aich ae ae
Ggeut
But unable understand how Norton bad no Isa =