Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1858-01-20
HOUSE oF UNDERSTANDINGS.
IIUUDL Ut
MONDAY, Jan, Is, 1853.
The journal Of yesterday was read.


The journal Of yesterday was read,
PETITIONS.
Mr. DOBSON presented the petition of the Copper
and Mining Companies Of Polk eouniy-aggrleved
At the exorbitaut taxation upon their mining pro-
perty: which was read, aud on bis motion referred
TO the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. ROWLES presented the petition Of some 90
persons residing IN Meigs county, praying to be at
tached to the county Of Bradley, which was read
and referred to the Committee on New Counties and
County Lines.
Mr. WHITE Of Hamilton presented the petition Of
sundry citizens of Hamilton county, praying amend
meut Of the law Of 1885, with reference to the in
PRODUCTION of cattle from Georgia and Alabama
which was received, without reading, and referred
to the Committee on the Judiciary
PROPOSITIONS PASSED THE FIRST READING
Mr. CARTER of Carter introduced bill mo 1881
to regulate the sale Of exchange.
Mr. LOW presented joint resolution against the
introduction of any business after the first day
OF February next, withOutthe consent Of twothlrds
Mr. HAMILTON introduced bill (NO 389) to Sc
cure and protect the rights Of infant orphan minors
and legatees.
MIR VAUGHN introduced a bill CNo. 500 to incor-
porate the Paducah and Nashville Telegraph Com
pany. oo,,
Mr. VAUGHN also introduced Dill (NO. 1917 to
amend the act entitled an act to amend, &c, the
charter of the city of Nashville.
Mr. Anderson introduced bill NO 1927 requir-
ing survey and notice before county lines can be
changed.
CORRECTION
MrBICKNELL corrected an error in the report
Of his remarks on Friday-he had remarked that
some gentlemen had objected to the code, because
it embodied the free-banking law
LAW REFORM.
The House now took up the special erder-the bill
1917 to abolish the present forms Of actions, and
substitute Petition and Answer, which was read
through by the Clerk, the question being on the
Mr. KENDRICK proposed to amend. by adding the
sBs L further enacted By the authority Aforesaid,
That hereafter the Circuit Courts in this State shall
have and exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the
Chaucery Courts in all actions and suits in equity,
and that the Judges of said Circuit Courts shall
have the power to order jury for the trial Of the
facts in issue in any Of the said actions and suits
whenever demanded by either party.
"Bs Il further enacted, That the Clerks and Masters
in Chancery and the Clerks Of the Circuit Courts
in this State shall have power to issue attachments
in all cases. without the fla: Of the Judge or Chan
cellor by giving bond and security, and making the
affidavit now required by law. "
| Mr. CARTER of Carter moved indefinite postpone
! ment Of the bill and amendment.
! Mr. THOMPSON said this proposition had been
long demanded by the people. Ii came within one
! vote of becoming law at she last session OF the
! General Assembly. He would be in favor Of abol-
ishing distinctions in the forms Of actions at law and
in equity: but the committee, aware that majority
in this House could not be obtained for the abolish
ment of the Chaneery Courts, submitted this bill,
which is simply to abolish the present common law
forms Of declaration, and substitute petition and
answer, and to abrogate all the common law reehni-
caties in a dead language, and require them to be
expressed in plain English. He explained and en-
! GOD tba rrovieioUs of the bill at length
Mr. ST JOHN opposed the bill, because it was not
a ecmplete law reform bill. He desired the abrOga-
ton Of the Chancery Courts. He would have re-
form bill that is reform bill
MrTURNER Of Sumner followed in reply to OBJ
! iections submitted complete explanation and de-
fence of the bill-making special reference to the
difficulty of determining amongst the nine forms OF
actions at law and the consequent yeXaOn, expense
s~d delays of being turned out Of court and com
nelled TO file amendments-and instancing the satls-
| faction with which the proposed reforms had been
received bv the legal profession and people OF the
State of New York and in other States WheresoeVer
this return to the simpler forms Of the civil law had
! been introduced. 80
MIR BULLOCK thought the caption Of the bill
sbouId read in this wise: bill for the benefit Of
LAWYERS and to delay sutors from obtaining justice
in the courts He thought the secret Of the lawyers
reconciliation to this law reform was simply this,
that its adoption everywhere resulted in the pecu-
MARY advantage Of the profession. lie proceeded
then to show that instead Of simplifying 1t compl-
Gated the proceedings of the courts. lawyer that
could not distinguish and determine upon the proper
form of action should be deprived Of license Forms
of action in the courts of Tennessee might he
amended in any stage Of the proceedings. lie
| never saw a man turned out Of court for want Of
form. There was not since the act Of S5l-2 any
such thing as a technicality in civil suit There
was nothing in the present fame Of the New York
Judiciary worthy to be regarded as an example for
the State of Tennessee This was what he would
call bill of complications and troubles. de took
ND the genteman's example Of proceedings IN case
of Islander, snd showed the advantage OF the com
mon law FORMS wherein you may make your charge
in various FORMS to detect and punish the tongue OF
| the slauderer. Similar advantages were manifest
in other cases. He took the case Of assumpslt, IN
which there was a special contract and showed the
SUPERIOR advantagest both parties in the use Of the
forms of the common law, over the one form pro
posed. The answer which the bill would require 10
be made in detail by way Of answer to every pom,
in the petition, would often make volume, instead
of the simple mot guilty Of the common law. he
would be more willing to abolish distinctions Of &C
TONS than to interfere with the pleadings OF lhe
, common law. He submitted objections to the DUE
One was the proposition to make man reslalng
without the State party, by publication; ana inc
INDICTMENT so obtained would be worthless. de
showed the distinction between such judgment
and decree in chancery against nonresident
Such judgments had already been declared VOID
by the Supreme Court of the United States.
: Mr. SUMNER. Is it not the same with the decree
in Chancery?
Mr. BULLOCK. Yes: if the court have not juris
diction of the person or property Of the defendant
The subiect-matter in litigation being in the state
gives validity to the proceedings. He objected
also 10 the requirement in the bill that every P
: 4ion and aps--ot stIuII De sworn To- II "OuiA
the oath too common and do away with Its sanclty'
It would be sometimes necessary to swear TO points
| in law.
Mr. SUMNER. How was it justihable, then, to
resort to the oath in Of attachment IN Chan
cery2
Mr. BULLOCK. The attachment was an extraor-
binary proce and for that reason it was sometime!
necessary to appeal to the conscience. He gave
distinctions, and without concluding, yielded the
fl DOR for
| The recess till two o'clock P NJ