Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1878-12-07
EEw ISSUE.
Some Points Bearing on Yesterdays
Decision of the Supreme Court
A Full History Of the Famous Bank Of
II Tennessee Case.
Nashville Banner. Sd.

vi lulS Ddnk lSSutu dlNOl .AeJ~ i
while the State was in rebellion, are
receivable for all taxes and other dues
to the State under the twelfth section
of its charter, which is as follows,
viz:
''Be it further enacted, That the
bills and notes of said corporation
originally made payable, or which shall
have become payable ON demand, in
gold or silver coin, shall be receivable
at the treasury Of the State by all tax
collectors and other public officers in
payment of all taxes and other moneys
due the State"
The case of Furman V. Nich0l, de-
cided by the Supreme Court in 1862,
and reported in 9Th Wallace, page A,
involved the liability of the State to
receive the notes of the bank emitted
prior to May 6, 1861, in the manner
and for the purposes indicated by the
section Just quoted. That decision
held the State bound for such notes,
but the question as to her liability for
the issue after that date was reserved,
In the year 1872, Atchison and Dun
can fled their cross bill, in a suit then
pending in the Chancery Court at
Nashville, which was brought for the
purpose of winding up the affairs Of
| the bank, in which they alleged them
selves to be the holders Of certain
notes of the bank issued after May 6,
1861, and for the redemption ofwhich
they claimed that the assets Of the
bank were responsible, in preference
to the demands of all other creditors,
under the general law Of the State.
giving priority of satisfaction to the
! holders of notes and bills of insolYeh'
banking corporations in such cases
The depositors and all others inter.
ested, in a contrary view of the case
sought to destroy the notes upon vari.
Gus grounds. The two principal o.
which were First. that the note.
were emitted in aid Of the rebellion
and second, that the States attitude
toward the Federal government at thu
time of their issue operated as a with
drawal Of the protection afforded b.
the United States constitution, by
which States are prohibited from pass
ing laws violating the obligation 0
/, contracts. The State was ransacked
from Carter to Shelby, for evidence t.
prove the first of the grounds, and al
, the ingenuity Of able and experience,
, counsel was employed to establish tn
second but to no purpose, the proc
Q showing cOnclusively that the note
E were not issued for war purposes, an,
Q the court holding that, as against tn
. banks, they constituted a contrac
{ protected by the constitution, althOug
6 issued during the war.
: An appeal was taken from the d.
: cree of the chancellor in the case, an
after full hearing and argument in th
d State Supreme Court it was af6rmet
Afterward other holders of simil;
t. notes applied to the Chaneery CouI
to file their notes in the cause for sal
isfactiOn out Of the assets of the banl
This application was resisted by I'll
e d~epositOrs and other creditors Of til
d bank, upon the grounds that they wei
n barred, first, by the statute of limit
! ton Of six years; second, by the sta
: ute barring action against the persona
g assets of the bank, and that Of seve
:. years against the reality belonging
it; and finally that the five years prt
g vided by the statute for winding u
purposes. after the extinction of tn
corporate life of the bank had expires
and that all debts due TO or from th
Y bank, not collected within that tim
become ipsO factO extinct. The:
points were deliberately argued b
Judge (nOW Governor) Marks, Yh
decided them all in favor Of the note
holders, from which an appeal ";
p taken to the State Supreme Courr
where the whole subject was abb
treated and the decision Of ChaneellC
e Marks affirmed. 2
ISL After the decision of the Suprem
Court upon Atchison d Duncan's crol
! bill, Bl0omstein rendered some Of Ii
: notes to Sneed, tax collector, in pal
ment of his taxes, under section II
the charter, and upon his refusing I
o take them sought TO compel him to d
! so by mandamus. The case comm
I up for trial in the State Suprem
y Court it was decided,
e. LIST. That though the notes const
tuted a valid contract against Il
/, bank, they did not constitute such
contract as against the State-Secti
> L of the charter not being operati,
during the tendency Of the illeg
i State government established here
n 1861, 50 as 10 bind the succeeding 10y
State government 10 receive the not
u issued at that time in payment
a taxes.
r And I'd. That a proceeding
A. this character was in effect a 81
against the State and could not
maintained subsequent TO the repeal
L the law allowing suits against t
D. State.
r This case was appealed to the ;
!. preme Court at Washington, whe.
:. after the lapse of several terms, it "
Is tried a year ago, and the decision
lie the State Supreme Court affirm
solely upon the ground that the ST
!. courts had no Jurisdiction to enfol
the contract by m%andamus, and Il
4 the act Of 1873, chapter -, provide,
s, different remedy, and one equally
h. eficaeious as that by mandamus
10 the enforcement Of the contract.
The act provides that, where a t;
payer claims theTight to pay his tai
I'd IN funds other than those reeeiya
i'll BY law. he shall FIRST tender them
n tie collector, and upon his refusal
NJ take them, shall pay the tax in le
= currency, under protest, and wit
thirty days thereafter sue the I
,ct %lector. and If the court before VII
a =