Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-11-21

claimed authorized him to make the ten
der to the Clerk, of the notes of the Bank
of Tennessee. The jurisdiction of this
court is, therefore, complete, and the case
must be decided on its merits.
The State of Tennessee, through its
Legislature, in 1888, thought proper to
create bank Gin its name and for its
benefit. 1t was essentially State insti-
tuition. The State owned the capital and
received the profits; appointed the direc-
tors. and pledged its faith and credit for
its support. This would seem ohave been
enough to establish the credit of the insti
tuition on firm basis, and to inspire con-
fidence in the value of its notes, so that
they would obtain a free circulation
among the people as money. But the
Legislature, in IFS anxiety to ensure for
these notes still greater confidence of
the community, went further, and pro-
yided that they should be receivable at
the treasury of the State, and by all tax
collectors and other public officers, in all
payments for taxes and other moneys due
the State.
It will be readily seen, that nothing
could have been better calculated to ac-
complish the purpose the Legislature had
in view than the incorporation of this
guaranty into the charter of the bank. 1t
assured the free circulation of their notes,
pave them a credit over the issues of
other banks, and furnished a security to
those who held them against any serious
loss, if, in the vicissitudes of trade, the
bank itself should become embarrassed,
for, annually, they would he enabled to
use the notes at their par value in the
payment of their taxes.
That this guaranty was, until Withdrawn
by the State, contract between the state
and every note holder of the bank, oblg-
ing the State to receive the notes for taxes,
cannot admit of serious question.
The State was engaged in banking, and,
like other corporations engaged in the
same business, DESTROYS of using all legiti-
mate means to increase the profits OF the
enterprise. The profits of bank OF issue
depend in a great measure on the ability
of the bank 10 keep its currency afioat.
The longer the bills are withheld from
redemption the greater the remuneration
to the corporation. Every additional
guaranty thrown around the bills, affect
ing their security and increasing the
uses to which they can be put, affords
necessarily additional inducements for the
people in whose hands they fall to keep
them, and not return them to the counter
of the bank for redemption in specie.
What so natural as that the intelligent
legislators of 1888, knowing all this,
should say to every person discounting a
note, or taking it in the ordinary transac-
tions of life, eff you viii not return this
note for redemption, we will take it from
you for taxes? ~ 1t is true you can de-
mand specie for the bills, and SO can the
State demand specie for taxes, but if you
will forego your right the State will do
the same, and consent to receive from you,
in lieu of specie, for the taxes due her,
the notes of the bank. In such transac-
ton the benefit is mutual between the
parties. The bank gets the interest on the
notes as long as they are unredeemed, and
the holder of the bills has ready and
convenient mode of paying taxes. The
State did, therefore, in the charter crea-
ting the Bank of Tennessee, on good
condition, contract with the bill-holders TO
receive from them the paper Of the bank
for all taxes they owed the State. Until
the Legislature, in some proper way, mott
ties the public that the guaranty thus fur
nished has been Withdrawn, such con-
tract is binding on the State, and within
the protection of the Constitution of the
United States.
An attempt is made to restrict the oper-
alton of this guaranty to the person who,
In the course of dealing with the bank,
receives the note, and not to extend it
further. Such an Interpretation would
render the guaranty of comparatively
little value, and defeat the object, which
we have attempted to show, the Legisla-
ture designed to accomplish by it. The
guaranty is in no sense personal one. Ii
attaches TO the note-is part of it, as much
so as if written on the back of it goes
with the note everywhere, and invites
every one, who has taxes to pay, to
take it.
The quality of negotiability is annexed
to tie notes in words that cannot be mis-
understood, and which indicate the pur-
pose of the Legislature, that they should
be used, by every one, who is indebted to
the State.
1t is cOntended that the promise Of the
State was withdrawn, in 1858, by section
COS of the code of that year-not in ex'
press terms, but by necessary implication.
Courts DO not favor repeats by implica-
ton. and never sanction them if the two
acts can stand together. The provision OF
the code. which is deemed inconsistent
with the continuance of the promise OF
the State, directs the kind of funds which
collectors shall, after that time, receive
for taxes. The Legislature thought fit tc
confer upon the people the privilege Of
paving their taxes in the issues of othel
banks that were at par. As these issue!
were in circulation at the time, 1t wa:
doubtless thought wise policy to allow
the people to pay their taxes in them, anC
as long as they've at par the State coulC
not be the loser
This policy was adopted for the con
venience of the people. There are in the
statute no words of negatlOn, saying tina
no funds other than those specified In TIT
section shall be received. But we are t.
| cOnstrue the different sections of the cod
together in order to arrive at the meaning
of the Legislature. In doing this, w
find that where acts of incorporation ar,
not expressly repealed, they are, in terms
saved from repeal by section AZ OF th'
| code. As there was no attempt in tn,
code to interfere with the charter OF tn
| Bank of Tennessee, it follows that il wa
saved from repeal, and of course, that tn
| guaranty contained in the 18th section o
the act of its incorporation was still con
tinued. That the Legislature so under
stood it receives additional confirmation
from the consideration, that this guarant.
was expressly withdrawn in 1860. VIII,
withdraw it then, if it was Withdrawn Il
1858?
The effect of the repeating act of 1856
remains to be considered. 1t is true, tn
State had the right, at any time, to with
draw its guaranty, but it is equally tru
that it must be done in such a manner q
not to impair the obligation of its conilaC
with the note-holders of the bank. Iha
this repeating act operated on all the il
sues of the bank, after its date, canno
be doubted, but the question with whic
we have to deal is, what effect did it hav
on the notes of the bank issued prior to il
massage? 1t is conceded that these plain
lifts are entitled to the relief they ask,
the defendant was obliged to receive tn
notes which were rendered. The tende
was made in the notes of the bank, issue
prior to the 9th day of May, 1861
which were in conformity TO its charter
and were payable to bearer. 1t does nc
appear when the notes came to the hand
of the plaintiffs-whether before or aftt
the repeating act-but it is a fair pre-
sumption, in the absence of any ave-
ment to the contrary, that it was after tn
date of that act.
| 1t is insisted, as the bank, during th
rebellion, was under the control of tn
usurping government, and it was used b
if for unlawful purposes, that it shoul