Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-11-29

| IA eHc COTpOfdliOil, ailu Was not az the Min
of the bill.
| The insolvency of the corporation is az
mitted by the agreed case, and such inso
vency, under our decision, does work
change in the status Of the corporation
and its creditors, so far as the distributor
OF its assets is concerned. The Officerssc
a corporation, upon its insolvency, havin
control Of its property and effects, becOm
trustees and hold the property for the beu
eft Of creditors and claimants, in the orde
| prescribed by law if any, and, ifnone, the
pro rata for all creditors and claimant,
Mari VS.. Bank Of West Tennessee, 4 Cold.
| AL. The insolvency must, however, b,
clearly established, before an adverse righ
aecrues to work this effect. Musely VS.
Williamson, Heisk., 276, 2S6. And
Court OF Equity, after such insolvency, viii
not allow one creditor, who stands upOr
the same ground as other creditors, to ap
propriate the common fund to his oWr
benefit so as to exclude the others. Mar
vs.. Bank OF West Tennessee, 4 Cold, All;
Clark vs.. State, Z Cold, 322.
The fact, however, that the creditor can
not acquire an exclusive right to the fund
he is seeking to subject, does not prevent
him from enforcing his rights to the extent
OF having his debt aseertained and adj
judged, and charged upon the trust proper
ty as far as it can be, that is, to the extent
OF its pro rata. The creditor who thus i'm
pounds and secures the fund will, more
over, ordinarily be entitled to his reason
able costs and expenses incurred in secur-
ing the fund. Rains vs.. Rainey ii H, POI;
ex parte Plite, Wall, Jr., 453. l see
nothing in the fact Of the insolvency of the
Incorporation in this case to take il out of
the general rule, to deprive the complain
ants OF the right to enforce their claims to
the extent above indicated. They are
clearly entitled, so far as this objection is
concerned, to prosecute their suits of at
tachment to judgment, and to have their
rights, al least to pro rata of the corpora
tion funds, declared, and the property at
taehed to the extent subjected to the salts
faction of their debts. The insolvency of
the Savings company at the filing of the
bill does not, therefore, preclude the COM
plainants from prosecuting their suits TO a
hnal decree. 1t, at most, only limits the
recovery 10 pro rata of the assets of the
corporation.
The second objection Of the defendant
corporation is that the title to the property
sought to be reached is not now, and vas
not at the filing of the bill, in
the corporation, but in the Commissioners
under the act Of Congress. If this were true
in fact and law, then, it is clear, that the
attachment would fail for want of any
thing to operate upon. and, although the
cOmplainants might, upon the answer and
admission of the defendant, recover a de-
cree for their debts, yet the decree would
be frIitless because the property would not
be subject TO the order of the court, foI
want Of the necessary parties before it. In
that view, the court might refuse to pro-
ceed until the necessary parties were
brought before it, or simply give the CON-
plainants judgment against the corpora
tion, leaving them to such further proceed
ings as they might be advised to take. The
latter would doubtless be the proper course,
unless the complainants should themselves
apply for leave to file supplemental bill,
to bring all the necessary parties before
the court.
The agreed statement, according TO the
have already pat upon it, is
that commissioners have been duly ap-
pointed and qualified under the act Of Con-
gress, and the trust accepted by them, and,
thereupon, by operation Of law the assets
Of the bank became assigned to the COM
miSsiOners. II may be that there has been
an actual assignment by the corporation,
and, if so, will allow the statement to be
10 show the facts. But, taking it
that there has only been an assignment in
law by the appointment, qualification, and
acceptance of the commissioners, is that
sufficient TO prevent the depOSitOrs in this
State from acquiring a lien on the property
by attachment?
The learned counsel have not argued this
question, nor undertaken to show me what
is the legal effect of a statutory assign
ment upon the rights Of third persons.
This may depend upon general principles,
or upon the laws of the District Of Colum-
bia. But, whatever may be its effects upon
property in that District, it is clear that it
can have none on property in this State
(real property certainly, and perhaps per-
sOnalty), until duly registered under those
laws. Code, 2030, 2072. If no formal
has been made by the corpora
lion to the Commissioners, duly proved
and registered in this State, before the filing
Of these bills, then | am of opinion that
the attaching creditors would acquire, by
their attachments, prior right to the prop
erty attached over the Commissioners. A
created by act of Congress is
still subject to the laws of the several
States in the sale and transfer of property,
in those States respectively, acquired by it,
precisely like the citizens of the particular
State. Mccullough vs.. Maryland, Wheat,
3l6. And certainly this would be so in the
case of a corporation created for the Dis
trict of Columbia, and only by virtue of
the power Of Congress as the Legislature Of
the District. The statutory assignment,
therefOre-eyen admitting its validity as to
all property in the District of Columbia
presents no obstacle to the relief sought by
these complainants as against the property
In this State.
The citizens of this State, who have
become creditors of the Freedman's Savings
and Trust Co. by dealings with its branch
1t Nashville, are clearly entitled to come
into the courts of the State for the purpose
Of having their rights against this cOmpan
declared, and subjecting its property in this
State to the satisfaction of THAR debts.
The government in which property is situ-
ated will never extend its comfy so far as
20 prejudice its own citizens, no matter
what may be the laws of its owners dOmi-
Ill. Gilchrist vs.. Cannon, Cold, 5Sl;
Allen VS.. Balm, Head, l06.
AS it is obvious, however, that complain
Lnts will not be entitled to more than their |
bro rata share of the assets of the corpora
ion, either by the State law or under the
let of Congress, and as they cannot legally
lscertain their pro rata without having
,sher claimants before the court, | suggest
o the counsel of cOmplainantS that they
lie an amended and supplemental bill, as
veil for themselves as for all other credit
ITS and claimants who may choose to come
md make themselves parties complainant,
md make the Commissioners parties de-
endants, and. while claiming satisfaction
,ut of the assets in this State, ask for all
roper amounts, that the property be sold
lnder the order of this court, that receiver
,e appointed if necessary, and for general
elief. Upon such bill, as well rs upon
he bill already filed, the cOmplainants
would be entitled to flats of attachment |
nd Injunction upon executing bonds as re-
uired by law. Whether the depositOIs in
his State might not elect to take the prop |
rty here to the exclusion of foreign depOs- |
tors, may be left for further consideration. |
A CANADA man tied his dog to the end |
{ a rear car the other day, and then bet |
4 N1,rsN