Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-09-17

Rally eutlieu W tuc CSAskVA vi t1o SSA1oa
fund as well as the surplus fevenues de-
| posted with the Slate, and which
the State bad made q part Of the
capital stock Of the Bank. The State was
a necessary party to the bill, as no account
Of the transactions OF the Bank could be
taken without the presence of the State as
party. See Gov. VS.. McEwing, Hum,
PAL.
By the fling of this bill, the State has
submitted the whole matter in controver-
sy, in regard to the transactions, of this
Bank, to the judiciary Of this State. It was
a 81 subject to be submitted to the Judicial
nv, and the act of the Legislature in sub
hitting it to the judiciary was nice and ap
propriate, as the Legislature could not
take the rights Of these creditors into their
own hands without their consent.
When sovereign power sues in It's own
courts, or In the courts q another power, it
submits to the jurisdiction Of the court, and
prays for remedies according to established
law. The court in its adjudication between
the State and the creditors must be gov
erned by the Constitution and laws Of the
land. aT q
When the Legislature directs suit
which involves the rights Of the citizen IS
well as Its own, the suit must be prosecuted
and decided according to law as between
individuals. The old doctrine that the
King can do no wrong does not apply to
sovereign State. The State having come
voluntarily into Its own courts, making its 4
citizens parties 60 its suit, asking the en-
forcement of remedies against them, lays
down its garb Of sovereignty and enters
the contest upon equal terms, and the same
law governs the rights of each. See the
able manuscript opinion of our Supreme
Court delivered by Judge Swami, case of
State VS.. White and Northwestern Rail-
road. We
The Code expressly provides that,the State
shall commence and prosecute suits accord
ing to the law of the land as between indi.
Fiduals, except that no security shall be re-
quired Of the State. Revised Statues 2806.
Mr.. Daniel in bis Chancery practice vol. /,
page %, says: "When q sovereign State
asks for the aid Of the Court In the asser-
ton of its rights, 1t must sue 10 a form as
makes 1t possible TO do justice to the de-
PENDANT. There must be pubic officer
named, who is entitled to represent the in
terest of the State, upon whom process
could be served in case they are advised
to file cross bill and require an answer
ture In this case requires the bill to be filed
by the officer of the State, and directs him
to have all creditors made parties in order
thai justice be done between all parties in
one suit; and the effects of the Bank res
cued from absorption Ly a multiplicity of
suits instituted all over the State. The de
positors are entitled TO file the cross bill and
the State Is bound to answer it, as the cross
bill involves nothing but the settlement
of the transactions of the Bank, in which |
the State is interested as sole stockholder,
and bound as guarantee by the charter.
The demurrer to this cross bill must ne
overruled, and the State required to an
swer, being permit ed to rely upon all its
legal defences in It's answer.
The holders Of the issues of the Bank
made since the 9th of May, 1861, are made
parties to the cross bill, but have not yet
appeared. Some of them are asserting their
rights to extiuguish debts due the Bank;
they may institute writs of mandamus
against public collectors, to compel them to
accept them in payment Of public dues,
and thus consume the fund in exclusion Of
other creditors. This cross bill is properly
filed, to have those rights adjudieated. It
may be thought premature for this Court
validity of this issue. The pleading and
proof viii show all the facts necessary to
final judgment. II then, bills were issued
to parties, paying them for munitions of
war, or other war material, and held by
such parties aiding the civil war, then they
would be regarded as a war debt,
which under the constitution ofthe United
States could not be enforced. But If it
should appear that the bank put these bills
in circulation previous to the removal
South, and they came into the hands of the
holders in the clear course of trade, they
paying an equivalent therefor, then Il
would be immaterial what was the object
or motives of the officers of the State in is
suing this currency; the innocent holder
thereof would be creditor of the bank,
and stand upon the same footing as other
note holders. At any rate they can recov-
er whatever their notes were worth at the
time put in circulation. The Supreme Court |
of the United States has determined this
principle in the late Alabama cotton case
The so-called convention of 1866, and the
Legislature, by act, had no power to declare
that issue void. Whatever right the holder
Of this issue had, was a vested right, and
no convention or legislature could srbitrari
ly deprive the citizen of that right. This is
question for the judiciary alone, when all
parties in interest can fairly be heard, and
right administered. - -
Then it as proper under the cross bill
that the holders of the issue called the
Torbet, should come in in conformity with
the design of the act of the Legislature and
have the validity of their claims adjudicated
and their relative priority, if any, settled,
and be paid in toto or In part, according to
the law and facts.
The injunction moved for by the joint &C
ton of the Attorney General for the State,
and the counsel for the compliments in the
cross bill against Jamison, Administrator,
and all other holders as class, is granted.
The injunction heretofore granted by
Chancellor East, on Dec 2, 1871, restrain
ing the negotiation of United States and
State bonds in the hands of the State Off
GERS is retained and the motion for the dis
solution Of the same is overruled. Other
questions are reserved until the parties ap-
pear and respond, and proof taken on all
contested questions Of fact.
GUILD, Judge.