Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-06-08
The BAS D. qEhNEsSER
Important Desisfon an Regard 20
sDeelaF Deposits. So


county few days ago:
bA Mrs. MOrUaH ". Bank Of Tennessee. az
Upon the approach Of the Federal arTqJ
to Nashville during the late civil war, the
officers Of The Bank Of Tennessee removed
the assets or ehe Bank from Nashville, and
at q sabsequent time carried them to An
gusta, Georeia. The President, Cashier,
aad some ofthe other officers Of the Bank
went IN charge Of &, and eontinue& TO ;Ise
the capital and assets Of the Bank for bank
ing purposes, and TO carry on banking
business h. the name Of the Bank Of Ter
nessee, and through and by the use of the as
sets, capltal and credit CT the Institution. I'M
der these circumstances the plaintiff made
SJecth deposite OF S, 800 in gold coin,
with the said officers Of said Bank st Au-
gusts, Georgia with the intent on her
part and also on the partOf said officers that
the Bank n It's corporate character should
be responsible to her for the safe keeping
and due retufn Of said coin, under the laws
regulating the liability Of banks to special
depositors. The plaintiff has made
regular demand Of the proper officers Of
said Bank for the return of said coin and
the same has not been returned. Hence
this suit.
The defendant resists the payment upon
several grounds. The first Of which / win
notice, is q denial that the action of Fisher,
the Cashier, al Augusta, in receiving the
special deposits had the legal effect 10 place
Il In The possession or custody of the corpo-
ration; that the bank as corporation could
only receive sach deposit and become re-
sponsible for Il as home and not away
- ri hauOnd
the limits of the State, and that, at most,
It amounted TO nothingmore than deposit
with Fisher personally. As an answer
to this position the court is referred TO the
act of March 10Th, 1862, the first section of
which is in these words; ''That during
the existence Of the present war, should
any Bank Of this State spprebending an at
tack upon the town or city where they are
located, deem it advisable for the safety of
their capital or for the purpose Of enabling
them to transact their regular business 10
remove with Its capital and effects to.
some other point in any State OF greater
safety the said bank, shall have the privilege
and right 10 make such removal and shall
have full power to conduct their business
at the point to which they may have re-
moved" And also joint resolution
adopted hg the Legislature ON the 10Th Of
the same month In these words: "Resolyed
by the General Assembly Of the State Of
Tennessee, that we approve Of the action
of the Bank Of Tennessee In removing its
assets and the bonds belonging to the Free
Banks to points Of greater safety" Assum-
ing for the present the validity Of this act
and resolution, the first question is,
what would be their effect upon the rights
aud liabilities Of the parties to this suit. The
solution Of this question involves, incident
ally, an inquiry into the relation of the Bank
to the Stafe.s The State owns all the capt.
ital OF the Bank, and consequently owns
the Bank itself. 1t appoints all the officers
and directors OF the Bank either directly or
indirectly, and they are the accredited
agents Of the State, accountable to
the State and State only, and the
State is liable to the extent of the capital
stock, at least, fur all the acts Of those Off
GERS and directors within the scope of their
authority. And though the original char
ters and subsequent amendments thereto
conferred no authority upon the Off
GERS TO remove the bank and its assets to
Augusta, Ga, and there 10 tranact a regular
banking business, and though It might not
ldN6 Dccu hlbLAAn 4DSAoAablfC = VIII
potency to have conferred such au-
thority upon the Union or Plant
ers' Bank, or any other private stock
Bank, yet It being the sole owner Of the
Bank of Tennessee, and the only person re-
sponSible for its undertakings, why might
not the State as well consent to its doing
business In Augusta as at Nashville, pro-
Vided the State Of Georgia made no objec-
ton And why not consent to be bound by
its transactions at Augusta as well as at
NashvilleS The Bank is but the agent Of
the State, trading on the States capital for
the States benefit, and with the
States authority. l know a corporation
Is said to be an artificial being,
invisible, intangible, and existing only in
contemplation of Law, and by force of law,
and where that law ceases to operate, and
is no longer obligatory, the corporation can
have no existence. But though these quail
tiles may constitute some of the elements
some Of the sublimated essences Of the
spiritual nature Of corporation, yet, like
man it also possesses groSser element-an
element which is natural, physical, visible
and tanCible-an element composed of
men, money, property, and the
& trash of this world" Aud
though it may be true, metaphys speak
ing, that the spiritual essences of a corpora
ton can no more pass the boundary of the
jurisdiction which enacted it, than a witch
can cross stream of running water, yet 1t
is a well established law tina. corporations
are recognized by the comfy of States, and
that a corporation chartered in one State
is perfectly competent to exercise all
or any Of its powers in any other State
or foreign nation, provided it does not yio-
late the public laws or policy Of such State.
A corporation may be said to have its resi-
dence in the State where it was created,
and for the reasons above given, cannot
emlgrate from it; but its existence in the
State where it was enacted and resides, be-
ing recognized in foreign States like nat
Ural person, it may By its agents make any
contract or do any act in a foreign Stale
within the scope Of its chartered powers,
which is not prohibited by the foreign State.
Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Co. vs.. the
Merchants Insurance and Trust Co. IL
Hump. IS. The mysterious invisible shade
called the corporation, can only
act through its physical agents, whether
In the State of its residence
or abroad, and the existence Of the Bank of
Tennessee being recognized by the State of
Georgia, it would be difficult to assign a
plausible reason why the receipt of spe-
cial deposit by its agent, Fisher, in the city
Of Augusta would not have the same effect
to introduce the deposit into the Bank as a
corporation SO as to render it responsible
as If the same agent had received it at
Nashville in the banking house. Neither the
city Of Nashville nor the banking house CON
situte any part or parcel Of the corporation
any more than the city where firm of
merchants reside, or tho store-hOUse in
which they keep their goods constitutes q
part of the firm. The only questions are,
did the bank by its charter have authority to
receive special deposits so as to bind the
corporation for their faithful return to
the owner? Was Fisher, the Cashier
and authorized agent of the bank, to
receive special deposits? Did he re-
csive the plaintiffs deposit in his
official character for ana on behalf
Of the corporation? If so, the fact
that hefeceived it beyond the limits of Ten
nessee can in no way effect the question
Of liability. For great while before the
Bank Of Tennessee was chartered it was,
perhaps, the universal custom with all
banks to receive special, as well as gener al
deposits, and the law defining their liability
for such deposits was well established and
The Legislature that charter
ed the Bank well knew the bank usage up