The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-05-24
U. s. CIRCUIT COURT--CHI
SP.C CHASE, PRESIDING.

morning, the Chief Justlce and his Honor
Judge Bryan on the bench.
On motion of Hon. D. T. Corbin, United
States District Attorney, Mr.. Henry BALDWIN,
practitioner IN the United States Courts Tor
Massachusetts, was permitted to practice in
the United States Courts for South Carolina.
The case of the Southwestern Railroad Bank
ct al. ys. Edwin Parsons, E. P. Scott ct al, was
resumed.
Edward McCrady, ESQ.,, was heard for the
plaintiff. This is suit in equity. The bill
filed pra5s for an injunction against Edwin
Parsons, who is suing the bank for over 81. 600,
Langston, who is suing for over $4,000, and
others, who are suing for various amounts, to
restrain them from prosecuting their suits to
Judgment. 1t prays also the advice OF the
court to the directors in respect to the haoll-
ity Of the bank FOR $3.50. .oe0 lent to the Confed-
crate States in 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 instalments OF capi-
tai stock, which will be sufficient to pay of the
debts Of the bank and enable the directors to
90 on with it's business; but that they are en-
barrassed, not knowing for what amount OF
debt evid,nced by the notes in circulation and
now in suit the bank is really liable. The aid
of the court is, therefore, sought to ascertain
the tue amount Of the debts, and in the m "a y
time to restrain the suits against the banl
Chief Justice Chase, at the conclusion Of hir
McCrady's argument, on Saturday, delivered
the opinion of the court upon the motion for
injunction as follows:
There is not such difficulty in tho case as
seems to require protracted consideration.
The object of the bill is two-fold First, to OBJ
tain an Injunction to restrain the creditors
of the bank from suing it in courts OF law.
Second, to induce this court to assume juris-
diotion OF the affairs Of the bank and advise
the directors in the administration of it's busi-
ness concerns.
It is quite true, as has been urged by couu-
sci, that courts Of equity proceed upon system
of rules founded in fundamental principles.
These rules are quite flexible in their charac-
ter and capable Of almost inde6natle adap.a-
ton to the indnite variety OF human concerns.
But on the other hand, there are certain def.
mite limitations Of equity jurisdiction which
courts Of equity are as bound to observe as
courts Of law are bound to observe the limita-
tions which define the exercise Of their juris-
diction.
The genera heads 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 the bill must be sought ii any
where. 9
1t Is undoubtedly true that directors 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, undoubtedly, Cir
cumstances may arise in which directors Of q
bank, like other trustees, would have right
to come into court Of equity for aid and
direction in the administration of their 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 trial by jury in
an action ct law upon the notes; whereas, if .
case were otherwise made, Of which we
could take jurisdiction, it would certainly be
proper, If not our duty, to send to the jury the
main question Of fact upon which the liability
of the bank Il supposed to depend, viz:
whether the notes in controversy were or were
not lent to the Confederate Government. This
fact is the first thing TO be determined, and
it is peculiarly the province Of jury to deter
mine it.
It would be going quite bsyond the limits of
our Jurisdiction as court Of equity to inter-
fere with the trial OF case Of this sort at
law.
It is said that o multiplicity OF suits is
brought against the bank upon it's notes; some
in this court aud some in State courts; but
this is not that sort of multiplicity Of suits
which gives jurisdiction to court Of equity.
They are all suits on money contracts, and are
all properly brought at law. Those which are
brought in the state courts are obviously be-
yond our Jurisdiction; and there is no. principle
Of which we are aware which will sanction an
interference with those which are brought on
the common law side OF this court.
It is urged by the complainant that inasmuch
as creditor might ale a bill seeking the aid. Of
the court to enforce the disclosure Of assets
and to compel the calling in by the trustees OF
unpaid capital for the satisfaction Of judg-
ments, so creditor willing to disclose all his
assets and resources and to place himself un-
der the direction Of q court In the administra-
ion Of them must be entitled to it's aid and
guidance in such administration. But the
appeal before us asks something more than
this. It asks us to determine in advance the
rights OF the bank as against it's creditors. It
is not creditors bill but debtors bill, and
Whatever rights the creditor may have to the
intervention Of the court, it is very clear that
the debtor has no such right, suoh as is set up
BY this bill to that interposition. The prayer
for injunction must be denied.
Saturday having been fixed for the call Of the
admiralty appeal docket, the following cases
ware heard:
Sslss & Co. vs.. schooner Aid; breach Of
charter party. Porter and Conner and a. G.
Magrath, Esqs.. for appellant; Campbell and
Seabrook for appellee.
DeCottes and Salss vs.. Mary Hart, owner Of
schooner Aid; libel for demuTage. Porter and
Conner and A. G.. Magrath for appellants;
Campbell and Seabrook for appellees.
In the above cases MIR. Conner and Mr..