Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-02-13
$4,000 IN SUIT.
The POiBJsand Facts In the Case OF the
state OF Tennessee VS.. the stock
holders Oft the National Bank
of the Metropolis.
Lingering Remnant of the old Tennes-
see National Banks Business
The Receivers Part I'm fl,
Etc. Ete.

EDITORS SAPPEAL-The following are
the facts of the case now pending in New York
courts Of the state Of Tennessee Us. the stock
holders of The National Bank OF
In October, 1866, the Rational bank of the
Metropolis Washington, was indebted to the
Tennessee national bank, Memphis, for about
fOrty-tve thOuSauddollars. II was mutually
agreed this debt should not be pressed. pro-
vIded sufficient security was given. Notes,
stocks and other obligations TO the amount Of
SiXty-six thousand dollars were set aside, and
q receipt therefor given, showing hat they
were held as collateral. A small part OF this
collateral was paid and properly applied.
Two months after, December, 1856, the Wash
ington bank went into liquidation; and three
months later still, March, 1867, the Memphis
bank failed. In the meanwhile the
officers OF the Memphis bank very properly
TOOK the COllaterals out of the Washington
bank and had them in the hands of Judge
sherman, who was afterWard directed TO give
them back to the agent Of the Washington
bank, with the express understanding that
they were the property Of the bank here until
the orig ginal debt was cancelled. The receiver
repeatedly called attention TO the balance,
some thirty-eight thousand dollars, still due
when he took charge, urging payment either
out OF cOllateralS or otherwise. He also Wis
tied New York and Washington several
times about this debt. AT one Of these visits
cash and five thousand dollars in ship
Stock-the latter OF no market value.
ON consulting his solicitor and agent Of the
state on his return, this offer was declined.
subsequently a peremptory demand was
made Tor the cOilaJterals or their avails. This
demand was refused on the ground.
Flrt-That the bank could not give collat-
erals in the face of liquidation or failure.
SecOnd-That when the affairs OF the bank
reached him these collaterals were not dis
singuishable from the other assets.
This claim was purchased by the state of
Tennessee. September, 1862, and carried with
IL the cOllateralS now in suit. The State is
plaintiff and the agent Of the Washington
bank, together with the directors and stock
Hol1ers, defendants, and who reside in New
York.
being largely indebted TO the government, the
collections paid were applied 10 that object,
and not TO the debt due the Tennessee ma
fioDaI II is also alleged that this diversion
was known to some Of the government OIL
cials in Washington, who took no pains 10
correct il. The defense rested chiefly on the
grounds taken in the above reply 20 the per-
enp:ory demand of the receiver here. The
plaintiff showed clearly that the securities
reached the Washington bank agent as such,
Specifcaliy, and it was also shown that ne
was the same person who had previously
made the offer of twenty-five thousand dol
lars for the claim, twenty thousand of which
was in cash. Much credit is due for the sue
cess OF this suit 70 the able management of
The case by MesSrs. Brunei * Lathrop. the
attorneys for the State who, notwithstanding
the lapSe of time and distance from evidence
on their side, presented the claim in a clear
and fOrcible manner. They acknowledge
themselves indebted to the late receiver OF
the Memphis bank for the aid and evidence
he gave, without which they say they could
net have succeeded. l. o. ..