Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-01-16

ing to the sum Of ninety-six Thousand
dollars, 10 which ws8 to be sdded i've per
cent. for poundags TO the commissioner
and an additional penalty o five per cent.
COMPLAINANT
alleges that be holds Atty shares Of stock
In asld company, which Is nos at par OK
above It; that the said law impsirs the
obligations Of the contracts before settled,
and is consequently void under he con-
stitutton of the United States that he has
applied to the trustees OF b bank, who
have taken no step TO arrest Bhe collection
OF the tax above stated; snd represents
that If the money b be collected a
paid over to the State treasury, the injury
to himself and bank viii be irremediable,
and prays An Injunction against the COM
missioner, the suditor OF the State, and
the trustee of the company. Notice, etc,
having been given that an application
would be made to the circuit court at its
late term, at Columbus, for
AN INJUNCTION,
which application being made In pursu-
ance Of the notice, there being no oppos1-
ton, the circuit court, On the force OF the
bill, ordered the Injunction to issue, bus
&C the same time the court said q motion
would be heard to dissolve the Injunction
during tbs term. A motion to dissolve
being made, 1t was agreed thai It should
be argued before tbs circuit Judge at cham
bers. Accordingly the motion came up 81
Cincinnati, and was argued by the sttor
nsy-general, Mr.. 2ugh, in favor OF the
| motion, and by Messrs. WOrthington and
SsanberY against il. Your honor rsmem-
barH the exalted eulOgy pronounced upon
Mr.. Pugh by the gentlemen upon the
other side. In that eulogy 1 heartily con-
cur, for 1 know that he has borne the rep
utatiOn Of a profound lawyer, and emf
nsn Statesman, and Z q patriot.
II las be conceded, when it be taken
into consideration hat Judge AcLsne on
this occasion had the benefit Of an argU-
| msnt from the eminent lawyers I have
named, that st least there wss an oppor-
tunity for
WELL CONSIDERED CASE.
And the Gaze recites as follows:
"The encouragement mainly contend
ed thai the complainant, as q stockholder,
could not sue b directors; that the bill
was hlsd for himself, n not In behalf Of
others; that 1t might be the wish of the
trustees TO psy the tax; hat the bill asked
the court to take the power from the rus-
tees as given TO them by the charter,
which would IN effect wind up the con-
Germs of the bank, and q number of aU-
thotities were cited as sustaining the pO-
siEiOn taken. Tbs attorney general also
commended that the tax was
o RUINoUs
to the bank, and that If the none were
collected, provision was made for the re-
payment Of it, should the law under
which it was assessed De decided by the
supreme court Of the United States 90 be
unconstitutional"
Tn above is q very general statement
of the argument OF Mr.. P1gh. Nothing
more than sn outline of it is attempted 10
be given.
Now, there were three lawyers in that
case, snd lawyers that my friend Smith
msy not ns acquainted Wi5h-4r. Worth
| iugtOn, who opposed the position Of Mr..
Pagh, and the other, Mr.. Sssnbery, for
merry
ATTORNEY = GENERAL OF h UNITED
STATES,
who appeared for the s~tockhoIder In this
case. Mr.. Stanbery is q gentleman OF
quite ss much repute &c either Mr.. Humes
or myself, and IL could not be said of him
that ne would do a clandestine act, or
perpetrste a fraud, or that his opinion
was unwsrrsnted. He was n Of the
counsel.
MI. Worthington opposed the position
Of Mr.. Pugh, observing thst be appeared
IS well for the trustees as for tins COM
plsinsnt.
Telling the court that he appeared for
the corporation IS well as tbs s~tOekhOiGer.
just exactly Whist Mr.. HUmss and my
self represent IL Is our position exactly.
He fled a bill TO restrain the commission
or from collecting the tax, and brought
his company to get the benefit Of the re-
lief. Ny lssrned friends had thess su-
thorities in their possession from the CON-
meneemsnt Of this sui5, but they have
not thoughtit necessary to tell your honor
Of this case. Thsy have
AssAILED Us WITH CRITICIsM.
They have not gone beyond their rights,
because I giYs them credit TOR having
done thsir duty, but they fred st the CEN
ter Of the mark, and though I Hks their
attempt at craftsmanship, II they are not
sufficient masters of the ri6s to his, 10
has not been for want of the VIII, bat ths
want Of skill.
Here We have the very identical csse
before n OF the most respected judges Of
the supreme court IN the land, and an
eminent LAWYER says: "Now, sir, I appear
for the corporation snd for the stock
holder" Now, this Is Whist the court
said:
'Is cannot be considered as any dis
paragemsnt to the State court that the
citizen OF smother State" That is our
case precisely. Il Is 3 stockholdsr sueing
8 wr~ong-dOer-s stakeholder including
with that wrong-doer his own corporation.
He says:
aThat the cit zsns Of another State aues
in the Federal court" Hs seems to see
the enOrmOus.fouy Of this whole thingi
The idea seems to prevail in the minds
o thsse gentlemen that thsre is
A CLINE
in seeking the Jurisdiction Of the Federal
court, and that the State courts are 70 De
put in luminosity with the Federal court,
and that there Is something wrong, some
thing reprehsnsible, somsthing to be de
nounced-this speing in ths Federal
court when there is no new oppression
exercised. no Obstacls imposed and moth
ing upon the face OF the earth that would
not occur in q State court. l. Is ~msgnihsd
into somsthing enormous that these
parties hSV6 simply preferred the Federal
court to the State court. Now he Judge
McLesnj says that that IL no 6ispsrsge-
ment.
Tho constitution and the act Of con-
gress give him this right. In the exercise
OF it he does no more than every suitor Ia
the State court who brings his action in
one OF the courts Of the State, which may
be a matter of choice or accident"
This is the identical case pa which I adj
vised, and III have no foundation, II I
have pronounced
AN UNwARRANTED OPINION,
It is because the opinion Of Judge Nc
Lean, Justice of the supreme court Of tins
United States, cannot AFFORD enough su-
thority to a lawyer upon which to render
advice.
'No reason is ever assigned by citizen
| of another State that be cannot obtain JUS
tice in the State courts. Such z suggss-
ton would not be tolerated, and the bih
would be dismissed for impsrtinence If
the Objectionable part were not stricken
out.
1.-THE complainant being a citizsn OF
| Connecticut, has 2 right to NJ in this
...-.@ Z - re- raaEo = 900 g. H. --a-
else Of jurisdiction By the circuit court.
"He mas stated an interest In the trust
company, which the law viii protect
against the
THREATENED INJURY
complained of, If that injury be irremedi-
able, and the mode Of relief be- within the
powers Of a court of chancsry. Il does
NOT follow hat the right asserted is hos
tile to the power of the trustees, be-
cause they are made defendants. From
the facts stated Ia the bill tb sppesrs the
right of clsimsng, and the relief asked, in
no respect interiors; with the powers of
the trustees. Il l. trus the complainant
also ssks that the trustees may be en-
joined from paying over the tax to the
State, bat there is enough on the face of
the bill TO show thst the suit of the COM
plainsnt was oroughB toprotect the rights
Of the trust company, and consequently
the rights of the trustees"
That is just what the opposing council
are denouneing. It appeared there that
the lawyer was the same; he represented
the corporation, and It appeared to the
court thai this suit was brought, not IN
hostility, but
TO PROTECT TIE RIGHTS
] Of the company, and 1t has never entered
into the mind Of any judge to suppose
that such a state of facts constitute some
/ thing enormous which thsV are Obliged TO
abuse. He says here ''that Il appears on
j - :. -. I'm a.. q. l. -. - -.