The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1858-12-11

to established principle, subversive of the
rightlul authority of the State tribunals
to interpret their own laws, and to deter
mlne the effect of contracts made under
them, and productive of conflict between
the rules declared by the Supreme Court
ana by this coutupon subject most clear
y within our exclusive jurisdiction.
but we do not consider the case relied on,
I a. authority in this case for other reasons.
The terms of this charter are different
From that involved in the case cited, in
/ several respects.
!. In that case the language Of the grant
was, that the bank shall be capable in
+ law, tQ have, possess recetce, retain, and en-
Hv &c. lands. &C. g054s, chatteLs, and
G1sst of what kind. nature. and quality
-soever, andthe same to grant demise, alien,
F. or d.u9sa oi. DC II was by force of the
+ words ito receive, retain, and enjoy efscts
ofvh0f-rsT i,nd, and to dispose of the same"
that the court held the power TO assign
Z piomissory notes to be granted. But the
I laa-l3re Of this charter is much less COM
I yrChen,iye. it is morly 10 purchase and
( poscas, and to sell and dispose OF personal
estate of any kind whatever. By the con-
text and the force Of this language, pro-
missory notes cannot be embraced, as is
above shown.
, No provision is made in this charter,
that notes should be taken, negotiable in
their favor-a circumstance in that char
ter which appears TO have had weight with
the court in aid of the position, that the
power to assign promissory notes was in
tended to be conferred.
5. The promissory note in this case, was
made after the passage of the statute of
/ Nf h.
banks; and that, being a general law, not
ilnpairing any right specifically granted in
the charter, was valid as a partial repeal Of
the statute authorizing the assignment OF
rromi-sory notes, and binding on the bank
a to all paper taken subsequent to its
2a-sage. Pa1pse ef a. VS.. Bai91cin 1t al. 3
5. & NJ. COL.
| These considerations, which appear to
/ have had weight in producing the decision
/ in the cases Of PL1ntcra' Bank VS.. Sharp
| q a., lead to q different conclusion in the
case before us; and upon consideration
! Of that case, we are satisfied that it is not
! conclusive Of the judgment to be render
1 ed in this case.
/ 1t Is, however. insisted that the case of
Planters Bank vs.. Sharp ct al, has been
recognized as binding authority in this
! court, with reference to this charter, and
must, therefore be the rule of decision in
| this case. and in support OF this view, the
| case Of the Grand GUlf Bank VS.. The State,
| 10 5. & NJ, Is referred to.
1t viii be seen by reference to that case,
that the.question of the power of the bank
to assign its evidence of debt, was not pre-
sented for consideration. That question
was not made by the pleadings, nor argued
by counsel. The rights of the assignees
| OF the bank were not before the court
nor was It necessary for the decision of the
q Csse presented, that such question should
have been decided. The question for de
| cision was. whether the Judgment of for
feiture against the bank for violation of its
charter, was correct, and the court decided
that it was Whether other parties had
rights by assignment from the bank, or
what effects passed under the judgment
of ouStCr, was not presented Tor consldera-
ton, and the Judgment cannot conclude
such rights. OF course, the observations
made in relation to the validity of the
assignment made by the bank, and the
unconstitutionality of the statute of 1910,
| cannot be considered as oyerruling the
principles stated in PgyEe ct al. VS.. Bald
l-3l q q. 3 $. 4 NJ, especially with refer
| ence to the charter, materially different in
its provisions from that involved in the
decision oi that case. Nor did the ques-
Ion arise or receive any consideration by,
tEe court IL .La~-.ze nc 60! Giitatltatl1l
Vs. Wood, l. 5. < N. 49,; Same vs. JcfiTie,
ID. 1856; I9r9iam vs. Griqg, i3 Ib. %.
1t follows from these views of the case
that the decree Is erroneous, and must be
rsgsrSc5, and me BIZ dismissed