The daily phoenix. [volume] (Columbia, S.C.) 1865-1878, 1873-12-06

s7-~7l--
Il The C1r1zEss' SAVINGS BANK CASE.
The argument upon the very interest 3
ing case o: sthea 4 Citiaens. Savings Bank
vas Concluded. .yestesdays bsfore Judge
Carpenter. sitting ID Chambers. Mr..
Magrath disoussed, 81 length, the ques-
tion sof the jurisdiction of the Court,
maintaining that the United States Dis
triot Court could exercise none, under
the peculiar circumstances. He said
that, in hie opinion, had the Judge in
that Court known of the proceedings
in the Circuit Court, he would not. have
entertained the consideration OF it in
his Court. It is settled rnle Of Courts
that, whenever there was possession,
real or constructive, tile cases must
continue. When the order for tempo.
rary injunction had been made out, it
was binding upon all parties. The de-
fendants could do nothing but submit.
They had no right to take the step
which they did take. They cannot go
elsewhere. The Judges order, until
reversed, is pro hac yice, the law to ell
- .'ls
concerned.
Mr.. Pope, of counsel for the defend
ants, urged that there was really no case
before the Court. Tho proceeding was
nullity from beginning to end. It
was not q case for Il creditors bill at all.
Mr. Dibble closed the argument on
the side of the plaintiffs. He discussed
the question OF ipjunctions. and the
conditions under which they eau be
granted. BE showed that those condi-
tions dill not exist in this case. He sus-
tanned the following positions: First,
TINT the Circuit Court has 20 iurisdic-
ton either in equity or by statute;
secondly, assuming that it has. there are
cogent reasons why it should not exer-
else the power; aud. lastly, that the
assets Of the defendants are in such
condition that the court cannot make
on order in reference to them. The
funds are in the hands of an officer of
the United States Bankrupt Court, and
are in the. custody Of that Court, and
the Court had acted entirely within its
jurisdiction. There is no way by which
the funds can be withdrawn from it.
The views Of Mr.. Dibblo as to the ir-
jurious consequences to depositors,
stockholders, and the public generally,
which would result from the appoint
ment OF Receiver by this Court. whose
functions would necessarily conflict with
those committed to the Registrar in
Bankruptcy in another Court, were
strongly put. The matter is in the
keeping of the United States Dis,
Court, and there must remain. It had
in no way infrin9ed upon the rights of
the Circuit Court. Each Court was in
dependent of the other. Each must re
spect the other. The action prayed for
by plaintiffs. if granted by this Court,
would infringe upon the rights and
prerogatives of the District Court, and
lead to endless confusion and injury to
parties in interest.
Judge Carpenter said tina. he would
take the matter into serious consideta-
ton, and render his decision lon next
Tuesday. He would give earnest atten-
tion to all the points presented, and
weigh we'll the practical consequences
OF conflict Of interests and proceed.
ipgs presented in the argument of Mr..
Dibble as possible or likely to take
place in the contingency pointed out.
LIST OF NEW ADVERTISEMENTS.
Duprez & Benedict's Minstrels.