Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-12-05
THE BANK SUIT.
ERll History of the Case--COnclusiou
of the Arnunnanf- &C

L sAA NAssoFy VI eAe CASe--IODckIlSi0E
of the Argument. etc.
On yesterday Mr.. A. L. Demoss mad,
the concluding argument in the bank case,
70 which we referred yesterday morning
Al creditors of the Union and Planters
Banks are vitality interested in the final re
suit OF tins cause. The question involved
goes TO the constitutiOnality of an act O
the Legislature passed Dec. u, 1866. An,
terror TO the passage of this act the Union
and Planters Banks had made assignments
for the benefit of creditors, the instruments
reclting that notes of each bank. amount
ing to several milliens of dollars. were ont
standing. Under these instruments tbe
Trustees nominated were empowered 10
take charge of the effects of the respective
banks, and to make pro rata distribution
as the assets were converted into currency.
Neither Trustee under the assignments
Tor some time gave bond and
quah1ed according to law. During
this delay the act in question
was passed which provided "that in all
cases where any of the banks of this State
have or may hereafter make assignments
for the benefit of their creditors. it shall be
the duty of the Trustees appointed by the
deed, or court, to execute the same; to
NIX time, which shall not be less than two
years, In which all claims against the bank.
and provided for by the deed, shall be pre-
sented for payment; after the expiration of
which time all the effects of the bank shall
be distributed and paid over ratably as fast
as realized to the creditors, whose claims
shall hare been presented, according to the
terms of the assignment, and all others
shall be forever barred
Under the provisions Of this law, certain
creditors fled bills, and transferred the
execution of the trusts indicated into the
Chancery Court at Nashville. whereupon
the Trustees originally nominated declined
giving bond equal to the amount of the
trust fund, and were thereupon an
pointed Trustees and Receivers, upon
giving bonds in sums of $50 =
900 each. As such Trustees, they
published notice, as directed by the act
referred to, but it was only addressed to
the notehOlders. This notice required all
noteholders to present them to the Trus-
tees on or before Jan. l, 1869, or they
would be forever barred. The act in ques-
ton left it within the discretion of the Trus-
tee to fix the time within which creditors
should present their claims for ultimate
settlement-t. e., after the lapse of the time
so fixed by the Trustee, distribution was to
be made. The only indication made, or re-
striction placed upon the Trustee was that
the time to be fixed for presentation of
claims should not ''be less than two years.
During the present year many persons
holding notes of these banks, which were
not presented within the time prescribed
by the Trustees in their notices, upon pay
ment being refused, filed their petitions In
the cause, asking to be permitted
to become parties to said cause and inter-
vene. Petitioners aver that act of Dee.
II, 1866, was unconstitutional, as i'm
pairing the obligation of contracts, etc. To
these petitions pleas were fled, setting
forth the fact that notice had been pub
lished as required, and that petitioners
we're barred by statute of limitations To
this plea petitioners filed q demurrer, and
the cause was set down for argument on
the demurrer to the sufhciency of the
plea
The solicitors for petitioners maintaining
the unconstitutionality of the act set up in
bar of recovery-that tie Legislature had
no power to delegate to trustee or other
person the right to create a statute of lin
tatiOn, by fixing such time as pleased the |
trustees, over two years-that the law |
was a partial law - that the |
act in question not only went |
TO the remedy, but destroyed the !
right, and that the remedy and right were |
SO related in this cause that legislation |
against the former put an end TO the latter; |
that the notes were a part of the charter, |
and that there was a contract between the !
bank and the note-holders, that the former !
ION demand" would pay amounts called !
for by the note, and that the Legislature |
could not destroy the obligation of their |
contract by the act In question; and, fur
Their, it was maintained that the act only
comprehended insolvent banks, and that
the banks In question, by report of the
trustees, were shown to be worth some
$4,000 more than their liabilities All
these, and many other positions assumed
by solicitors for the petitioners, were an
swered with great force, skill and ingenuity, |
by W. f. Cooper and E. H. Ewing, |
the eminent counsel for the banks |
A. L. Demoss, and John f. House & r. |
W. Pritchett and Jordan Stokes, McClana- !
han & Glare, were of counsel for petition !
ers. The discussion of the questions in |
volved was very interesting. Chancellor |
East viii, in few days, deliver his opinion, |
when we will lay it before our readers.