The New York herald., 1877-08-26


OF October, 1873. when ailed anu suspended pay
mem. Thcreupor the Comptroller OF the Currency,
after due proceedings, appointed receiver ioI
the association, and II put liquidation under
the act OF Congress before mentioned aud the acts
amending IT, and the plaintin IL such receiver being
lawfully appointed undcr the said act BY the con-
version OF the Bank Of New Orleans into such BANK
Ing association every holder Of the shares Of tho
capital stock OF said Bank OF Now Orleans became .
shareholder OF the capital stock OF said New Orleans
banking Association 10 the OF his shares ana
such subject 10 the liabilities imposed by said act Of
Congress on such shareholders. There Is owing by
tho association 10 its creditors large OF money.
Its assets arc insufficient 70 pay Is debts II has oe.
come necessary, In order 20 pay the debts TO enforce
the LIABILITY OF the shareholders. The Comptroller
has decided that this shall be DONE
On tho 7th day OF June. 1875 by his order In writing,
no required the plaintiff. such receiver, enforce
such liability against each stockhoder 10 tho amount
failure OF tho association rhe capital stock Of the as
socation 5000 000 divided into 10000 shares OF
tho par value OF $50 each.
Tho defendant is an alien, subject OF tho Kingdom
OF Italy, and vice consul &c Al the date oi the faii-
urc OF the association he the owner Of hy shares
share BY reason thereof hc is liable to pay the sum
o 81, SOC. He has been specially requested 70 pay
that sum, and has refused to DO so rho plantn ~
therefore, entitled by force OF the statute 10 recover
the said SUN OF 50o with Interest al tho rate o nve
per cont per annum.
rcplications and otner plcadngs might be nIcd with
out reference TO the order IN which they were properly
pleadabic.
The defendant dcmurred to the declaration and as
signed the following causes:-
Fyrst--That tho defendant rs bound TO contribute
raaoly and that the proper amount can be asceraned
Second-rnat the defendant IS bound to contribute
rataby to pay large sum that this SUN is not stated
IN the declaration, anu hcnco what would DO Tataby
and proper does not appear
Thtrd-That tho obligation OF the defendant is to
pay the hands OF the Comptroller OF the Currency
ratablo poron oi tho dobs OF the association proved
boorc him. and the declaration docs show that any
debts had been proved.
FourtL-That tho declaration demands larger sum
than tho defendant Is required by the statute 10 pay,
and also an additional sum by way OF interest
regard 10 tho nrst three OF these objections IT s
sufficient say that Kennedy W. Gibson Wall, 49s)
IL conclusive against them
On certain pleas in abatement It Is held that au
thorly from the State necessary 10 enable tho
bank TO change its organization from State to na
tonal banking association. The option 10 do that was
given BY the Banking act, and tho power conferred
was ample. The act Is silent 10 any assent or per-
mission by the State II was competent for Con.
gress authorize the change as to create such nsti
tutons orig naly 1t Ia also held that tho decision OF
the Comptroller of the Currency to tho complete
of the corporation is conclusive ofthc point. De-
murrer sustained.
Mr. Justice swayne delivered the opinion
CHESAPEAKE OHIO CANAL CoNpANY's CoNsrRrc-
Tioy BoxDs--ISTKREsr COUPON BoXDs-rnE RULE
No. l9x W. W. Corcorgn appellant va. tho Chesa-
peake and Ohio Canal Company-Appeal from the
Supreme Court Of the District OF Columbia The
OF us organZaton In 1S245 issued several series OF
bonds secured by as many mortgages its property.
The largest OF these mortgages tho earliest, and
was gwen the State OF Maryland tor several millions
OF dollars Another was made TO the State Of Vir.
glniu. both oil wliC0 states contributed largely
by the Of their credit TO the construction Of
this important work. In the last stages OF tho
struggc to extend tho canal to Cumberland
where 1t reached the coal beds. which alone havo
made 1t of any value, The company issued another
series OF bonds to the amount OF 100 OO0 Tor The
payment Of which II pledged by way or mortgage the
revenues and tolls OF the canal alter 1cducting tho
necessary cost OF running the canal and its repairs,
aud perhaps some other defined outlays. In this
mortgage Mr.. Corcoran, the complainant and appel
LIANT IN the present suit, OF several trustees
for tic benefit OF tho bondholders, and Mr Corcoran
himself became. aud according to the statement
OF tho present bill is nov, large holder
Of these bonds or Of the coupons !or interest
tnom The purpose OF tho bill hied in this
by Mr. Corcoran, in tho Supreme Court Of the
District OF Columbia. behalf OF himself and uli
others In Ike condition rs holders OF ttis class Of
bonds Is 10 enforce payment the coupons Of
tcrcst duo and unpaid for many years past The de-
endants 10 tho bill arc the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Company, the State Of Maryland and tho remaining
trustees OF tho mortgage bonds which the suit Is
founded They have oil answered except the State OF
Maryland Tho answer OF the trustees Is unmportant
rho canal COMPANY aam. Inc ,ndSo.saness 60. ana the
the mortgage OF the tolls and revenues In plain
uns mortgage thcre is now, or has been
nues, which lhoy could lawfully appropriate
payment OF said coupons except SO far thoy
have already done SO. Alter several amendments OF
the pcadgs and stipuatons 70 facts tho issue
finally narrowed to two questions, namely tho turis
dicion OF tho Supreme Court of the district and tho
right OF tho holders OF tho interest coupons to exact
out OF tho not revenues Of tho company payment Of
interest those coupons from the respective dates
when they lcIl quo.
The rst of these questions Is raised by tho PROPOSE
tion oil tho defendants, the canal company that tho
State OF Maryland Is necessary party 10 tho suit, and
she has not voluntarily appeared, and cannot be
made amenable to any process 10 compel an appear
ancc, the bill must bc dismissed on that ground
In thc view which this Court takes Of tho
other question and the court has jurisdiction
The canal company Il Is unnecessary 10 consider or
decide this reference TO the question OF inter-
est upon the interest cCup0ns tho canal company, In
It's answer compartments bill, alleges that IN u suit
brought by the State oi Virginia, In the Circuit Court
OF Baltimore CITY, TO which suit the present complain
and his co-trustccs, the State OF Maryland, the
canal company anu others, representing all tho var
classes OF bondhoIders were parties, "tbe ssuo
raised In this that the coupons upon said reIored
bonds entitled TO bear interest from their maturity,
which Is TO be allowed out Of the revenue ot the
respondent preference 10 tho claims OF the Stute OF
Maryland, was distinctly presented, was argued
among others by the solicitor Of the complain ant In
this csc and decided by the Court In opposition
10 the claims OF sud complainant as then asserted
and reiterated IN the bill In this case" Tho record
that suit, including the opinion OF the Court OF
Appeals and the brief or tho coausei Of the present
Virginia distinctly claims interest upon the coupons
which she held, standing In the Same relation rs
those Of the appellant hero The right 10 that
interest rs preference the debt the State Of
Maryland Is denied by the answers OF the canal COM
pany AMI the State OF Maryland. Mr.. Corcoran and
his colrLslecs submit all hoso matters 10 tho decision
the Court II was, therefore, properly IN issue.
Indeed tho whole subject Of priority OF lien as to
tho revenues and tolls OF the canal was before the
Court and was the very matter 10 DO decided aud
necessarily included the question whether tho State Of
Maryland, in the statute BY which she waived her
prior lien tar the revenues OF the company
concerned 1avor OF the class OF bonds and coupons
hc!d by the State OF Virginia and those represented
by Corcoran trustee, included interest upon inter-
est or only principal and current interest,"
The opinicn vi the Court OF Appeals OF Maryland
found In The record exhibit and reported IN 81
Maryland r., sol, while conceding the general rule
that where the annual or sem-annuaI Interest on u
bond represented by distinct coupon, capable Of
separation aud removal from the main instr ument It
bears interest from maturity II unpaid holds that
uuder the special statue OF Maryland authorizing tho
picugc by the canal company OF It's revenues Tor the
payment OF those preferred bonds and interest, and
waving her own existing priority OF claim those
revenues simple interest only was meant and that, us
to the hen revenues aud tols the
the coupons were included in tho lien.
The opinion undoubtedly decides the very point IN
controversy here II Is SAID, however, that tins IS
only opinion, and that unless Judgment decree
Is produced tberc can 10 no c,toppc the principle
asserted IS undoubtedly CORRECT But III u stipulation
sgnedb tho parties 10 The present suit II ced shat
hns been passed by the Circuit Court OF Balti-
Guy making distribution OF the net revenue Of
said canal company and ordering their pay ymcut from
time time the same accrue conloi nifty with The
said opinion."