The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-24
y. o 0CIRCUITCOURT--C T--CIfIEFJUST1CB
8. z CHASE. PRESIDING.

The Court Openol at ucvon O'Clock Saturday
! morning the Chief Justice ID lis Honor
Judge BRYAN on he bench.
GA motion e Hon. u. L. lbin, U"ited
Sta'os Dist lot Attorney Mt. Horny BALDWIN.
| q prao;itOnor in tho United States Courts for
Massachusetts was permit cd to practIce in
the Unlied States Couris for South arOl1na.
Tho case of the Southwestern Ralroad Bank
ct a. vs.. Edwin Parsons, e. r. Scott OF al.. was
resumed.
Edward MoCrady, Esq. WAS hoard for the
plaintiff. This ls suit in equity. Tho bill
fled pra>s 10, an injunction against Edwin
Parsons, who is suing tile bank for over $50 GOO
LangstOn, who is SUING for over SIG 600 and
others. who are suing for various amounts. to
restrain thom from prosecuting thor suits to
Judgment. It prays also the advoe of the
ity Of the bank for $3.50 600 lent to the Confed-
crate States ID notes Of the bank, to recover
which is in part the object of the suits.
The bill states that the directors have the
power to call in additional instalmenls Of oari-
tai stock, which will be suf6ci to pay of the
debts Of the bank and enable tho directors. to
go ON with it's business; but that they arc en-
barrasssd, not knowing for what amount Of
now IN suit the ba * IS really liable. rAe aid
Of the court is. therefore, sougAt 10 ascertain
tho t1ue amount Of the debta. aud in tho ,.,ean-
time to rostrain the suits az must the bank.
Chief Justice Oh 50, Mt the conclusion or AIr.
MCCradl's Ar9un ont. on Saturday, delivered
the opiniou Of tho coult u Jon tho motion for
injunction as follows:
There ia not suoh difficulty in tho case as
fD ,1r, y
rho object OF the bill is two-fold First, 10 OBJ
tain an ipjunc ion to restrain the creditors
of the bank from suing it in courts Of law.
Second, TO lnduCo this court to assume juvs-'
dction OF tho affairs Of the bauk and advise
the directors in tho administration of it's bls,-
| ness concerns.
1t is quito true. as has been .,cd by couu-
sci, that courts of equity proceed upon q system
Of rulea founded in fundamental principles.
| These rules arc quite hoxiblo in their churac-
| tor ADD capable Of almost indefinahlc adap.a-
ton to tho induito variety OF human concerns.
But on tho other hand, there ara certain def-
| mite limitations of equity jurisdiction which
courts Of equity are as boun1 to observe as
courts Of law are bound to observe the limits
tions whloh define the exercise of their iun j.
diction.
| The genera hoads of jurisdiction in equity
embrace, as every one knows, fraud, mistake
| enforcement Of contracts and trusts. 1t is
under the latter head that jurisdiction OF the
case made by tho bill must be sought If any,
| Whero.
| Ii is undoubtedly true that dir sctors Of banks
are trustees; they are trustees for the stock
holders; they are trustees for the creditors.
| And under proper circumstances they may be
controlled in the administration OF their trust
| by courts OF equity. And, undoubodly, cir
| cumstance5 may arise in which directors of q
| bank, like other trustees, would have a right
| to come into court OF equity for aid and
| direction in t e administration of tAoir trust
! No such circumstance, however seems to
exist In the present case. The application
made by the bill appears TO us to be prema-
ture. Its object is TO prevent a trlal by jury in
an action at law upon the notes; whereas, If a
case were otherwise made. of which we
could take jurisdiction, it would certainly be
proper, if not our duty, to send to tho jury the
| main question Of fact upon which the liability
| OF the bank IS supposed to depend, VIZ
whether the notes in controversy were or were
not lent to the Confederaie e Government. This
fact is the first thing to be determined, and
| 1t IS peculiarly the province Of jury to deter
| mins it.
| 1t would be going quite beyond the limits oi
our jurisdiction as court Of equity to inter
fore with the trial OF case OF this sort at
| law.
1t is said that multiplicity Of suits is
brought against the bank upon it's notes; sonae
IN this court and some in State COURTS but
this is not that sort Of multiplicity OF suits
I wh r,iv Inv
They are all suits on money contracts. and are
all properly brought at law. Those which are
brought III tho State courts are Obviously be-
yond our jurisdiction; und there is no principle
OF which we are aware which will sauctiou an
interference with those which arc brought on
the common law side OF this court
IL is urged BY tha complainant til at inasmuol
| a5 creditor might file bill seeking tho MD fd
the courS TO enforce tho disclosure OF assets
ana TO compel the calling in by tho trustees OF
! unpaid capital for the Satisfaction of judg-
ments, SD q creditor willingGto disclose all his
assets and resources and to place himself un.
| DER the direction OF q court in tho administra.
tion Of them must be entitled to its aid and
guidance IN such administratio vBut the
appeal before Us asks something moro than
| this. 1t asks us to determine in advance the
rights OF the bank as against it's creditors. Il
is not creditors bill but debtors BILL and
whatever ghts the creditor may have to the
intervention OF the court, it Is very clear tina,
the debtor has no such right such as is set u1
by this bill to that interposltion. Tho praye,
for injunction must be deniod.
Saturday having been fixed for the call of the
admiralty appeal docket, the following cases
| were heard:
Salas & %. .vs. schooner Aid; breach Of
CHARTER party. Porter and Conner and A. G..
Magrath, Esqs., for appellant; 0ampbeli and
Seabrook for appellee.
DeCoetes and saiss W. Mary Hart, owner Of
schooner Aid; libel for aenurrags. Perter aud
Conner and A. g. Ksgrath for appellants;
CampbeA and Seabrocx for appellses.
In the above cases Mr.. Cennss and Mr..
MAgyAth WeI0 heard for apnAllAnta and NJ +