Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-08-04
THE RANK OF TENNESSEE SUIT.

u n
The "NeVV Issue''-CIaims of the De-
pOsitOrs-An Amended Bill Filed I'm
their BehaIf-Can the State Of Ten
nessee be Sued3
An amended cross bill was filed yesterday
in the Chancery Court by Messrs. Hum
phreys & Lindsey, in the case of the State
of Tennessee VS.. the Bank of Tennessee, ct
ais, in behalf Of the claims Of depOsitors Of
the bank. In addition to the matters con-
tanned in the cross bill filed by them last
December, and which we published in full
at the time, the amended cross bill raises
some other and very interesting questions.
l. By the original bill filed by the State
all Of the creditors of the Bank of Tennes-
see, of every class, were enjojned from
prosecuting their claims in the courts, ex-
cCpt as defendants 10 the States bill, and
were required to file their claims for adju-
dicatiOn in this cause in the Chancery
Court at Nashville. This decree has been
complied with by all the creditors of the
bank, except The holders of the notes Of the
bank called the "new issue" and "pOst
notes." The amended cross bill states
that K. Il. Jameson, administrator, etc,
has pleaded the tender of these "new is.
against him by the bank in the Circuit
Court Of Maury county, for debt due
from Jamerson 70 the bank. The result
of this mode Of adjustment of the debts
Of the bank will absorb a large portion
OF its effects, and enable the purchasers
of these notes TO secure payment in full,
while these cOmplai nants, who have fled
their claims in this cause, may receive only
a small pro rata payment. If the said
JaimersOn be not enioined from prosecuting
his defense, and required to file his claim in
this court, many other suits and defenses
Of like character win be instituted so as
TO waste the effects Of the bank and defeat
an equitable distribution thereof. That the
case is not fairly presented in the record,
now in the Supreme Court, of the Jaimer-
son case, and will not, therefore, settle the
rights of all the Tote holders. That Vt is a
matter of much importance to these COM
piainants that the rights of all the note
holders should be settled in one litigation.
They therefore pray that said r. b. Jatm-
ersOn, Administrator, etc, be enjOlned from
further prosecuting his defense in the Su-
preme Court, and required TO file his claim
for adjudication in this court. Also, that
all of the holders of the "uew issue" and
"post' notes, be made parties, as 2 class, to
this cause, for the same purpose.
2. That the Legislature in 1861, author
iZe the Governor to issue the States bonds
70 the amount of five millions of dollars,
bearing eight per cent interest, and payable
ten wears after date. That of the five mil
lions of bonds Sd issued, the sum of
three millions two hundred and eighty
thousand dollars, are purchased by the
President and Directors of the Bank while
the Bank was in operation in Tennessee,
1861, with q. G.. Torbett its President.
That said bonds we're paid for out of the
effects Of tie Bank, and that the President
and Directors of the Bank were required to
so purchase and pay for them by the cOnsti-
tuted authorities of the State. That said
bonds are now held by the Receiver of the
Bank, as part Of its assets. Complain
ants pray that the question of the validity
Of these bonds be adjudicated by the court;
that the Receiver be enj lined from sur
rendering them 10 the State; and that, if
declared valid by the court, said bonds be
subjected TO the payment of compliments
claims, who deposited their money in said
Bank, aud who hold a lien on all of its eff
fects. But in the event the court should !
hold said bonds to be invalid, it is prayed |
the State be held to account TO the Bank,
and these compliments, for the sum of
three millions two hundred and eighty |
Thousand dollars with interest, 30 paid by |
the Bank TO the State for said bonds.
3. BY section 2,SO7 of the Code of Ten
uessee, il is provided that actions may be |
Instituted against the State, under the same j
rules aud regulations that govern actions 4
between private persons. COmplainants 4
charge said section ig now in force as 4
4 Al. % ov,AA
is not repealed. That the Journals Of the |
Senate aud House, for the early session of |
1865, which are made exhibits to the cross |
bill, show the following facts: The appro- |
priation bill, to pay the expenses of said |
first session, originated Ia the House of |
Rapresentatives, as blouse hill l42," and, |
as an appropriation bill, passed the three |
readings in the House, and was then sent |
10 the Senate. On its third and last read |
ing in the Senate, Mr.. Senter offered the fol- |
lowing amendment, to-wit: abe at further |
enacted, That section 2,S07 Of the Code Is !
bereJy repealed" which amendment was
adopted aud the bill, as amended, passed |
its third reading. The bill was then re- |
turned 10 The House, and this amendment, |
repeating said section 2,S07 Of the code, was |
read but once in the House, Mr.. John |
TrimJie, on The passage of the bill in tie |
Senate, recorded bis vote ia the negative, !
aud asked and obtained leave TO have the I
following protest spread upon the Journals, |
Go-Wit:
"Ihe Undersigned enters this, bis protest, |
Sgaiast an amendment to the appropriation |
bill, rep ,aiing or attempting to repeal sec
ton Of the law Of the land, known in the |
Code uf Tennessee as section 2,807, |
allowing the State of Tennessee TO be |