Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-05-19
NEW ISSUE AGAIN.
Is the state ROand 20 Receive 10 for
Taxes2-The Question Argued I'm the
Eunreu1a Court Yesterday.

Supreme court IcsAeEuoys
The case Of Bloomstein-ys. Sneed, Col
lector, a mandamus TO test the right TO
have the new issue received for taxes, was
heard Yesterday before the Chief Justice
and Judges Sneed, Mcfarland and Turney.
ATTORNEY General Heiskell appeared for the
State. aud R. McP. Smith for holders OF
the new issue.
The positions assumed for the Stale
were. that the right TO 2 mandamus In rev
euue cases was taken away by the act OF
1873. under which payment must be made
under protest before suit can be brought
against the Collector; that the money was
barred by the statute OF limitations; that
lie dissolution of the bank took place Jan.
/. 1873, the charter expiring Jan. l, 1865,
aud the additional five years Of corporate
life allowed by the Code at the date tirst
mentioned, and that the elect OF tins was
to extincuish the debts due to and from
the banS, and that the States guaranty was
iucapable Of surviving the instruments
guaranteed; also, that the money being is
sued in aid Of the rebellion, the NV
amendment to the United States Constitu-
tion prohibited its being paid by the State,
which taking it for taxes would be equlya-
| lent TO.
II was urged, on behalf of the plaintiff,
that the act of 1873, taking away the rem
| edv bv mdnddHUS was unconstitutional,
because il impaired the obligation Of the
contract of tie State to take the money fOl
taxes, by taking away the only remedy
| competent to compel its performance, which
| remedy existed when the contract was
made. The remedy provided by the act of
! 1873, it was urged, did not apply TO the
| ease at all, this being suIt against the col
| lector after payment, under protest, OF the
| taxes in the funds demanded; the issue OF
which could only be a judgment, to be fol-
! lowed bv a warrant on the treasury for the
amount of the recovery. That the right
| claimed was to haze The money taken for
| tdres, not to be compensated for refusal OF
this right: and that the act of 1878 prOyid-
ed for no way of ever enforcing this right.
That, therefore, as it took away the exist
inc remedy, and supplied no other equally
| eflicacious, and, in fact, no other at all, II
impaired the obligation Of the States con
trait to take the money for taxes, and wa
void.
As TO the statute Of limitations, it wa:
said that il had been decided that this die
not commence to run against bank note:
until they had been presented at the coun
ter, and payment refused; but that sine
this decision, Code sec. 2779, had provided
that no statute Of Limitations should Tlu
AGAINST bank notes; that aside from this
the holders had, at the instance Of the
3 State itself, been eujoined for some MIN
wears from suing upon thsir claims, Whiei
e | precluded the running Of the statute; also
3 that Mark r. Cockril, having fled cred
itors' bill on behalf Of all the creditors O
r the bank, thereby the running OF Tn
D statute was arrested; also, that by the IN
= | solveucv Of the bank the assets became
d trust fund for the benefit OF creditors, an
r. that in cases Of trusts the statute did No
o run; and finally, that the undertaking q
G the State was independent Of that OF u
e bank. and could not be affected by Tn
e operation Of the statute OF Limitation
D urou the latter; aud that the former va
not susceptible OF being barred by Oh
lapse Of time.
,. That the expiration Of the charter
a corporation could no more Obllterate ]
liabilities thai the death of man cOul
extinguish his; that the old common la
:, dirt,gu as TO dissolved corporations new
Il did apply, even in England, to mOneye
generations whose capital stock was
IF trust fund for the benefit Of creditors al
D, stockholders; that upon the dissolution
n The corporation, equity would adminlst
IS its assets. if necessary; that where q wine
ing up period was granted, as Of I'VE yea
T. i'm this State, this was in the nature OF a
v administration, and was an addition
Re remedy for rights which else would ha'
1t had TO be administered in equity, al
which upon the expiration OF the give
i period would, if necessary, be protected |
D, equity. which never permitted a trust
L. fail for want If a trustee.
$ 4. That there was no evidence that al
y, Of the money involved was issued IN aid
q, the rebellion; but that if it was, this cou
~ had recently decided that it was valid Wit
y issued: and that it was not competent
is even a constitutional amendment TO d
p, prive The holders Of the money Of qua
e, anly attaching to it and valid when mad
re i'm support Of which the remarks OF {
IS, United States Supreme Court in 20 Wa
y, G62-3. were quoted, as 70 the sacredness
H. primal rights, and their exemption Ire
n, Governmental infringement.
The case was zealously argued on DO
sides, and the decision is looked Tor vi
l. ] ru.Hgn