Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-12-20
THE BANK CASE.
Arguments Of Hon. Neil s. Brown, At
tOrney General stubbIefieId and MIR
Reid-ThP Case Concluded

Arguments of Hon. Neil =. Brown, At
tOrney General stubbIefieId and MIR.
Reid-The Case Concluded.
Chancery Court met yesterday at 10
o'clock A. NJ, A. S. Colyar, Special Chan,
cellor, presiding. The bank case was again
before the court. The argument was con .
tiEued by Attorney General Geo. StubbI
field, Gov. Neil S. Brown and Mr.. Reid.
Mr.. Stubblefeld represented the State of
Tennessee. He took the position that the
state was not liable for a wrong committed
by its officers or agents outside of their
Official deity, and If the bonds of the Ex-
change Bank were misapplied by them, or
TOO much circulation was countersigned, it
was outside official duty and the State was
not liable. He cited many authorities and
commented on them TO sustain this position.
de also held that these officers and agents
were created by law, and that the people
and the bank trusted them voluntarily, and
consequently at their own risk.
Gov. Brown represented the Bank of
Tennessee. He said he could not pass by
the State in this attempt to make her liable
without rendering his aid in that direction.
That the idea that the State was liable
under the facts Of this case, was iar-fetched
and chimerical. That the State did all in
her her power after the law had been
passed in reference to the free banks and
the proper officers clothed with power to
carry on the business In behalf of the
Bank of Tennessee he said that the bank
was bound only 10 receive and keep the
bonds on special deposit That the hank
received no compensation, and was
therefore under the doctrine Of bailments
not bound TO anything more than ordinary
diligence. That under the proof, all the
bonds deposited with the Bank of Tennes-
see, had been promptly accounted for I'M
der the law, and that none of the bonds
were lost by negligence, and no difference
how much negligence the bank had been
guilty OF, it could not be held liable unless
it could be shown that the bonds had been
lost in consequence of that negligence,
and this the complainants had failed to-rlo.
All the losses, if any, lie at the door ofthe
Comptroller not the Bank of Tennessee.
Mr.. Reid, for the complainants, argued
that the defendants demurrer, which had
been filed with their answer, could not now
be available, because il was not set down
for argument and heard at the first term
after il was filed that it was filed with the
answer in 1861, and as there had been no
proceeding on it the law now presumed il
waived, and also the act of 1865 repeating
section 2S07 of the Code, allowing a right
of action to citizen against the State
could not affect actions commenced before
the passage of that act even If il was cons
stitutional. He then went into history of
banking in Tennessee before the free bank
ing act in 1852 and sc, and went infinitely
into the provisions and purposes ofthose acts
to show the rights they conferred and the
duties they imposed. He showed that the
State undertook 10 regulate the amount of
the currency of the free banks-to keep
them within proper bounds, and secure the
people by holding bonds in its possession
TO be applied to the redemption of the cur
rency; that the State by the part il took
in regulating these banks and requiring
that the name of the Comptroller be of
fcislly signed TO the notes, put its credit
in with that of the banks became party
TO the issue and circulation of their notes,
and was consequently bound TO redeem il.
BIhhAtu Nildb tue tJLdlc WIS HOT DOunQ
for the tOrts Of its officers, but that the
State could and did contract to secure the
currency Of these banks. Ii undertook in
controlling the whole matter that there
should not be more currency than it held
bonds TO redeem that il would be mon
strous TO hold chat the State could take the
bonds belonging to the banks without their
power to prevent it, and place them in the
hands Of an unfaithfIil officer, and not be
liable for their misapplication. The Comp
troller was selected by the State; repre-
scented the State, and if he issued too much
currency il was an act in the line of his Of
fetal duty, and the State was estopped TO
deny that there were not sufficient bonds
TO redeem the currency he signed.
As to the liability of the Bank of Ten
nessee, he said that the act of 1856 intend
ed the bank and Comptroller should be
mutual checks on each ether that the
bank should have allowed no bonds to go
out of the bank without knowing the pur-
pose TO which they were to be applied
that by a compliance with the law in this
regard, il could have secured itself and the
people but as it had violated the law, and
innocent parties had suffered, it could not
be heard TO excuse itself
The argument was concluded, and the
Aealaior " "a raearuod