The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-10-11

William Bayne against the fahey ou"'
oroyinp for q receiver. This OH we Pr.
.ented to the Chief Justice on the l4to u1y
,f November. 1867, and he granted ah osu.i
An the defendants to show cause way 'p9
lief PRAYED for should not be grah'eo'
115, book A, Of the RECORD. y,,aoo Under.
rho hearing was had before JuoGe uhe eeI
wood IN the latter part Of November, lee',
and elahorsteIy argued for seyeral Gays v,
Irdoe Crump and myself on the one slue
"a hon. Andrew Hunter. OF ChaIieslo"s'
and other leading lawyers on the oenel.
THE court granted the injunction ana aP-
rointed the receiver, as prayed ana u tne'e
was any error in it the CHIEF Justice was
40 a At The very next term Ct tie cou,t-May.
1Scs-and would OF once have Ieciihed any
wrong if any one had complained TO nun.
From that time until June, 1868, was oc'
,,njpd bv the receiver in trying TO settie Tue
debts due the bank. He employed NE as MS
attorney for the purpose of collecting deo's'
and Judge Crump and myself co0perated TO-
oether. dividing the fees Of $50 10 each case
Slowed bv order of the court hereinafter
mentioned. My commissions for collections
we're divided with local counsel at the va
rions places " here the bank had branches.
THE RIFLES NIs1 ORIGINATED BY THE DECISION OF
THE SUPREME COURT.
# soon became apparent that other modes
of collecting the assets Dust be resorted 10 !;
and after careful and patient investigation
of the Jurisdiction OF the Federal courts, ana
the proceedings in like cases in the English
chancery. we found that citizen OF New
York obtaining Judgment here against ei;l'
zan of virginia in the United States court
could make his Judgment efectual against
his debtor by punishment process against
nersops owing money 10 or holding eifects OF
that debtor; and that under the Constitution
of the United States citizen of another State
had right to assert bis demands in the F'ede'
raj tribunals, whose duty it was to enforce
such right, and for which purpose they were
mainly created. ....
We collected decisions of the Supreme
Court of the United States aud CT the Lord
Chancellors of England which we believed
then aud still believe would amply support
The exercise of jurisdiction claimed by us.
In conformity with this view test case
was made, and tried before the Chief justice
on the 9Th of June, 1868.
The National Exchange Bank OF hlcn-
moud owed the Farmers Bank a sum OF
money, the amount Of which debt was ID
dispute. A receiver had ia the mean tlme
been appointed for the Farmers 3anS. and
we filed petition in the name OF william
Bayne and others against the Exchange BANK
10 that cause praying the court 10 order II 10
pay this money into court to the receiver. On
this petition the Chief Justice himself Issued
the order on the National Exchange Bank to
show cause. It did show cause Why Il
should not pay the money by Johnston d
Williams. its counsel, and the case was heard
before Chief.Justice Chase on the 5;h OF
June, 1868.
1t was then stated clearly to him that the
proceeding was a new one ; that II was an al.
Tempt 10 apply the charcery Jurisdiction OF
the court to collect the assets, and that il, IN
bis Judgment, such exercise Of jurisdiction
could be maintained the same process would
be used in collecting the assets OF the Valley
Bank and the Farmers Bunk then held by
receivers of the court. Judge Underwood
was on the bench, bat took no part 10 the de.
cision. The Chief Justice declared that he
had no doubt upon the question OF JurIsdIc-
ton, and thcreupon passed the following or
der:
The proceedings in this cause hdrin9
i" been read and considered, and The drgu
"ments of counsel heard, and IL appearing
" to The court here that the Sqid National Ec
"change Bank of Richmond IS indebted 10
"the president. directors, and company OF
" the Farmers Bank Of Virginia IN the sum
"ot SI22.92. it is ordered that the SAID
" National Exchange Bank Of Richmond do
"forthuth pay ouer to DaUad j. Saunders.
"the rcceiuer in this cause. the said sum of
"S122 81, and that the costs Of this proceed,
sing be paid ont of the fund IN the hands Of
:" the receirer.'-Page 265, Book A.
This is the first OF these spalchng rules
nisi."
On the 30th June succeeding this decision
instituted the suits 10 the Valley Bink ca sc
to be heard October l, 1868, and November
l, 1868.
JUDGMENTS BY DEFAULT ENTERED BY CHIEF.
JUSTICE CHASE.
The suits in the Farmers Bluk case were
instituted September 80, 1868. to be heard
December 8, 1868. The Chief Justice pre-.
sided at November term, 1868. and 90 the
a b day of November passed an order allow.
ing an attorneys fee OF $50, and fixing all
the costs to be taX"d in each case, and fur
tier directed the form in which judgments
should be entered in all the cases against
debtors of the Bank of the Valley, toe
Farmers B.nk, and the Bank of Fincastle,
in " hch petitions had been filed and orders
nisi issued. and where the parties had due
notice and had made no defence.-Page 353,
Book A.
Judgments were accordingly entered &C.
cOrdlng to this form, tuus adopted by the
Chief Justice, on the 18th December, 1868
know lie was present for nearly two weeks
at that term, and think he left about the 9th
or 7th OF December.
All parties concerned, therefore. had am
pie time to have their causes heard before
Dim II they so elected.
He was here again at the May term, 1869,
and May term, 1870, bearing many impor.
tant arguments, and delivering some of the
abe>t decisions of his life. During all this
time fro1 November. 1867. 10 May, 1870.
slthough be was present .at every term of the
court save one, and While these very enorm-
ties complained Of were Seing committed by
the District Judge, and while the flower OF
the bar Of Virginia, among whom were
Judges JoyBas. Christian. aud Staples, Of the
Supseme Court of Appeals. Judges Well
ford, Fitzhush, and Barton of the other
courts, and most of the leading counsel OF
the whole bar, we're retained 70 these causes,
for creditors 10 see that the fsnd was fairly
collected and distributed, or for debtors to
see that they were properly protected, not
asiugle complaint OF motion was made by any
counsel or client tS the Chief J3stice, who
could on mare petition have requifed sill mo-
ns5 improperly paid at once to De refunded
to the receiver and the receiver removed.
Very many Of the debtors appeared By the
best lawyers OF the Stxte, and disputed the
power of the coart, the jurisdiction, aud the
proceeding. Had they chosen they could
have. bad the question futly argued aRd if
the decision was against them could haye
takeE it TO the Supreme Court of the United
Statet, where success would have been equi
yalent to discharge from tie debt, which